Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

BRITISH RAILWAYS (No. 4) BILL (By Order)

BRITISH WATERWAYS BILL [Lords] (By Order)

CROSSRAIL BILL (Br Order)

EAST COAST MAIN LINE (SAFETY) BILL (By Order)

GREATER MANCHESTER (LIGHT RAPID TRANSIT) BILL [Lords] (By Order)

LONDON UNDERGROUND (GREEN PARK) BILL ( By Order)

Orders for Second Reading read.

To be read a Second time on Thursday 22 October.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL FINANCE

Exports

Mr. Bates: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his latest assessment of the United Kingdom's export performance.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Norman Lamont): United Kingdom exports are at record levels.

Mr. Bates: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that answer. Does he agree that the fiscal imperatives necessary for successful manufacturing exports are low inflation, stable exchange rates and low unit costs? Does he further agree that it is necessary and important that those remain at the core of Government policy, and that that is vindicated by the news that in the past three months exports in the manufacturing sector increased by 4·5 per cent. to a new record level?

Mr. Lamont: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who is right to stress that British exports can do well in competitive markets provided that we keep our inflation down, that it is not merely equal to, but better than the average and that it compares well with the rates of the Germans, French, Japanese and Americans. Unless we do that, we shall not gain our market share. Our manufactured exports have increased our share of world trade in the past three years, so I accept and am grateful for what my hon. Friend said.

Mr. Skinner: Why does the Chancellor of the Exchequer not admit when he talks about exports

increasing that imports are also increasing? The latest trend suggests a £9 billion deficit this year on the balance of trade. If the right hon. Gentleman really wants to do something about Britain's export performance, he should cut interest rates by 2 or 3 per cent. and get out of the exchange mechanism.

Mr. Lamont: I do not expect that the current account will be a constraint on growth. Even the figures that the hon. Gentleman mentions, which I do not accept, are a small portion of gross domestic product. The only way that this country can increase exports is by becoming more competititive year by year, by increasing productivity and by keeping increases in earnings and wages down to the levels of our competitors. There are no quick fixes. The idea that we can help this country's economy by depreciating the exchange rate is pure illusion, pure fool's gold. The only way to do that is by improving productivity and competitiveness.

Mr. Brooke: Is my right hon. Friend encouraged by the work of Edinburgh economists, which shows that during the 1980s there was a marked shift in the destination of British exports from third world to more sophisticated markets, which is a good omen for our competitiveness in the 1990s?

Mr. Lamont: My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. Our largest export customer is Germany, our second largest is France and the third largest is the United States. I do not know how people who believe that there is some easy answer through depreciation think that we are going to compete unless we get our inflation rate down to the levels that pertain in those countries.

Mrs. Beckett: Will the Chancellor confirm that, although he said that exports are at record levels, imports are at even more record levels and that our balance of payments is showing a record deficit, even in the depths of the recession? Furthermore, our share of world trade in major manufactures is less than it was in 1979. Do the Government propose to do anything at all about that?

Mr. Lamont: Our imports have risen, but some pick-up in imports is certainly expected as the economy recovers. I repeat what I told the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner): any prospective current account deficit is of a size that can be easily financed. The only way that we can increase our share of world trade is by becoming more productive and more competitive. The hon. Lady does no one any service by pretending that there is some easy way out.

Stamp Duty

Mr. Cyril D. Townsend: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the moratorium on stamp duty.

The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Anthony Nelson): When my right hon. Friend the Chancellor announced the increase in the stamp duty threshold last December, he made it quite clear that it was a temporary measure for eight months only. We have no plans to extend it beyond 19 August.

Mr. Townsend: My hon. Friend will know of the importance of the housing industry in pulling Britain out of the recession. Can he offer any hope and further


assistance to that sector? Does he agree that the stamp duty has some basic flaws? Can he forecast its total demise?

Mr. Nelson: I must point out that stamp duty on property alone raises about £1 billion, which is a considerable sum to the Exchequer. On the problems of the housing and property industry, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor introduced a significant package last December which included payments to building societies for those in receipt of income support. In the longer term, it is the reduction in interest rates, brought about by the economic policies to which the Government are committed, that will bring about the firmest and surest revival of the property market.

Mr. Madden: Will the Minister confirm that the stamp duty holiday, which gave some limited help to home buyers and the building industry, was sabotaged this week when a group of Conservative Members did not have the guts to vote in the Lobby in accordance with their declared beliefs?

Mr. Nelson: I do not accept that for a moment. My right hon. and hon. Friends voted clearly, firmly and unanimously for the reintroduction of stamp duty because they recognised that that was an essential part of the public expenditure programme and the resources that must be raised through it to meet that balance.

Mr. Budgen: I wish to offer my support to my hon. Friend for his suggestion that interest rates are the most important thing in reviving the housing market. May I suggest, as a matter of convenience, that he arrange for the Bundesbank to communicate direct to the House, because it seems sad that he should have to second-guess what it says and go through the humiliation of being a mere messenger for that foreign body.

Mr. Nelson: I am not sure that my hon. Friend's point arises out of this question, but no doubt his comments will be heard as clearly by the Bundesbank as they have been by the House.

Dr. Marek: The Economic Secretary is more or less admitting that his initiative on stamp duty has failed, but we are still in recession, we still have a huge balance of payments deficit and an astronomic public sector borrowing requirement and the Budget forecast of growth is so much pie in the sky. If the Chancellor says that we must be more competitive and more productive, how exactly will that be achieved by Treasury Ministers?

Mr. Nelson: I do not accept that the stamp duty moratorium was of no help, because 540,000 property transactions took place during that time and the benefit gained was equivalent to £400 million. That real benefit has been left with home purchasers. To extend the moratorium, as the hon. Gentleman suggests, would cost another £430 million, which would be a significant burden on the PSBR this year.

Environmentally Friendly Projects

Mr. Marten Jones: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to use tax incentives to encourage companies to invest in environmentally friendly projects.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Stephen Dorrell): The existing tax regime already gives relief for capital investment by companies on machinery and plant or industrial buildings, including investments in environ-mentally friendly projects.

Mr. Jones: In the light of what the Prime Minister said 12 months ago at Olympia about energy efficiency and promoting measures to help that, is it not about time that the Chancellor did a little more about that and did something useful, through the tax system, to promote energy efficiency? As a start, perhaps we could get rid of VAT on energy-efficient products.

Mr. Dorrell: It is interesting that the hon. Gentleman concentrates on energy efficiency, because that is a good example of an environmentally friendly investment which any company can make and which is justified by the costs that are saved by saving that energy. Saving energy is not only green but saves costs. It does not need a tax incentive to justify that.

Mr. Chris Smith: Is it not eloquent testimony to the lack of interest in putting the environment at the heart of economic policy that not a single Conservative Member has risen on this question to participate? The Government, for all their fine words, have done precious little to include environmental concerns in their taxation policies. There have been no differentials on VAT, no real incentives for industry and no action on vehicle excise duty. There is an existing green agenda in which the Government should be interested—why are they not?

Mr. Dorrell: It is eloquent testimony to the fact that the Labour party is uninterested in reducing tax rates that right through the passage of this year's Finance Bill a range of alternatives for tax allowances—for example, against corporation tax—were pressed on us. The only way to pay for all those proposals, had we accepted them, would have been by raising the marginal rate of corporation tax and making this country uncompetitive with other developed countries.

Manufacturing

Mr. Jenkin: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of recent trends in manufacturing productivity; and whether he will make a statement.

The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Michael Portillo): Manufacturing productivity stood at its highest ever level in April this year.

Mr. Jenkin: Does my right hon. Friend agree that our successful economic policies during the 1980s promoted a vast improvement in manufacturing investment towards that end of the decade? What positive conclusions does he draw from that and from his reply?

Mr. Portillo: My hon. Friend is right to say that manufacturing investment grew by about 31 per cent. from 1986 to 1989. Manufacturing productivity today, as we come out of recession, is higher than it was when we went into recession. That is a reason for having a good deal of optimism about the future.

Mrs. Ewing: In considering the issue of manufacturing productivity, which is vital, does the Minister recognise the


role that has been played by workers in manufacturing in reaching targets? Is he aware for example, that 1,300 people are to be made redundant at Ardersier yard in Scotland by the end of September, representing the largest single redundancy measure in the onshore oil engineering industry every recorded in the United Kingdom? If the right hon. Gentleman really cares about productivity and production, will he examine what is happening in the oil fabrication industry and, in particular, consider the possibility of the Government's giving some direction on where the construction of the Claymore jacket for Elf Caledonia is to take place?

Mr. Portillo: I share the hon. Lady's regret about individual redundancies. At the end of the 1980s and at the beginning of the 1990s, we had the highest ever level of manufacturing output, yet about 5 million people were employed in manufacturing, compared with 9 million in the 1960s. Manufacturing productivity has risen steeply and the number of people employed in manufacturing has declined, yet manufacturing output has recently been at its highest ever level. That does not help with the individual redundancies to which the hon. Lady referred, but I want to set the role of manufacturing in the context of the economy as a whole

Mr John Townend: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it has been an enormous achievement to increase productivity at a time of recession, when one would have expected it to go down? To what extent does he think that that increase in productivity has been due to improved industrial relations, with the number of days lost through strikes being at an all-time low? Does he agree that that has been due to the industrial relations reforms introduced by the Conservatives in the past 13 years?

Mr. Portillo: The improvement in industrial relations has played an important part. I am pleased to note that earnings are responding to the economic cycle and that the earnings increase has recently been at its lowest level for 25 year. That means that the prospects for employment growth in the future are much better than they would have been.

Mr. Nicholas Brown: it is something of a novelty to hear a Treasury Minister boast about manufacturing industry, and I congratulate the Chief Secretary on his nerve. Will he confirm that about 2 million jobs have been lost in the manufacturing sector since 1979? In those circumstances, is he now willing to revise his forecast of unemployment at 2·4 million to a more realistic 2·7 million for this year?

Mr. Portillo: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his congratulations, although I do not congratulate him on how carefully he may have been listening to what I said. I go further than the figure that he gave. I have told the House that employment in manufacturing has decreased by 4 million since 1966. We are talking about a very long-term trend in this country under various Governments which has occurred in all advanced industrialised countries around the world. My answer to the hon. Gentleman's question about forecasting unemployment is that the Government make no such forecasts.

Mrs. Angela Knight: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his latest assessment of the trend in manufacturing investment.

Mr. Portillo: Manufacturing investment rose strongly during the late 1980s and has fallen back during the recession.

Mrs. Knight: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the record investment of British manufacturing companies such as the engineering and lace business in Erewash is now serving those companies well in the difficult world trading climate? Does he agree that the successful conclusion of the talks on the general agreement on tariffs and trade will help world trade and the British economy? Will he press European Finance Minister colleagues to conclude a successful deal—especially the French?

Mr. Portillo: I am happy to join my hon. Friend in congratulating business men and women in her constituency on their investment performance. During the first quarter of this year, business investment rose by 3½ per cent., including a 3¼ per cent. increase in investment in plant and machinery. My hon. Friend is absolutely right to say that a successful conclusion of the GATT round will be in the interests of all of us. As she will know, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister stressed that point strongly at the Group of Seven discussions in Munich.

Mr. Sheldon: Is it not clear that one of the great barriers to manufacturing investment is the high level of interest rates? Why does the Chancellor of the Exchequer consider himself so bound to act as the poodle of the German Bundesbank on interest rates? Why does he not listen to my hon. Friend the Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) and think about a reduction in interest rates, which he could well get away with?

Mr. Portillo: First, I repeat to the right hon. Gentleman that, in the first quarter of this year, business investment showed a sharp and welcome improvement. If he considers the underlying rates of inflation, he will find that real interest rates in the United Kingdom are a little lower than those in Germany. He should take that fact into account in his calculations.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Coming as I do from a business background, may I ask my right hon. Friend whether he will accept from me that it is time that the Government and the House realised that the British economy is in a serious state, unemployment between now and the middle of next year is likely to rocket through 3 million and that, unless the Government reduce interest rates, they will compound the problems facing this country and hinder its ability to recover?

Mr. Portillo: I believe that my hon. Friend, who is indeed a great friend of manufacturing industry, will be pleased that manufacturing output reached its highest ever level in the early 1990s. He will be pleased at the figures that I have given this afternoon on manufacturing productivity, which was at its highest ever level in April. I do not accept what my hon. Friend says about the rising rate of unemployment. If the Government were to give up trying to control inflation—which I fear is the outcome of what my hon. Friend would like us to do—the economy would be in grave difficulty and we would face much higher unemployment.

Mr. Beith: Does the Chief Secretary realise that the call from the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) was relatively moderate compared with the call for a large cut in interest rates that came from the former Prime Minister? What went wrong with the policies which she followed and carried out and which were meant to lead to generally lower interest rates? Was she just plain wrong?

Mr. Portillo: The policies that we followed have led to lower interest rates. Interest rates have been cut on nine separate occasions. They are now 10 per cent. and were previously 15 per cent. That cut has been of tremendous benefit to both business and householders. The right hon. Gentleman is trying to imply that if we had followed a different set of policies, we could have had lower interest rates today. I see no evidence for that.

Miss Emma Nicholson: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, whereas the money supply is under Government control, where that money is lent is wholly under the control of the banks? In the late 1980s some banks lent to businesses that should never have been allowed to get off the ground in the first place. It is ridiculous to suggest that the matter is a Government responsibility—it rests with the clearing banks.

Mr. Portillo: I take my hon. Friend's point. She speaks with the experience of having spoken to some of her business people. Any of my hon. Friends will understand that it is the Government's responsibility to maintain downward pressure on inflation. All our hopes for the recovery of industry in general and for the improvement of our employment prospects rest upon there being absolute certainty that the Government will continue the fight against inflation. I am pleased to say that the markets can have that absolute certainty.

Mr. John Smith: Is the Chief Secretary aware that the most recent report of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development shows that manufactur-ing investment in Britain fell by 11·9 per cent. in 1991 and that, even worse, it is predicted to fall by another 3·8 per cent. during the current year? Is that a satisfactory state of affairs? What action will the Government take to promote manufacturing investment, without which there is no prospect of recovery from the recession?

Mr. Portillo: The right hon. and learned Gentleman has just quoted a forecast, and he is often sceptical about forecasts. I shall give two facts. First, manufacturing investment rose by 30 per cent. between 1986 and 1989: therefore, we are starting from a high base. Secondly, business investment rose by 3½ per cent. in the first quarter of this year, 3¼ per cent. of which was in plant and machinery.

National Economic Development Council

Mr. Merchant: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received concern-ing the abolition of the National Economic Development Council.

Mr. Jacques Arnold: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received concerning his announcement on the abolition of the National Economic Development Office.

Mr. Lamont: I have received a small number of letters commenting on my announcement.

Mr. Merchant: Does my right hon. Friend agree that this apparently massive outburst in public concern shows that the only tears that have been shed for the abolition of the National Economic Development Council are the crocodile tears of Opposition Members who are as out of touch with popular sentiment on this issue as they are with economic reality? Does he further agree that he was absolutely right to abolish the NEDC?

Mr. Lamont: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. As I explained to the House when I made the decision, I did not think that the National Economic Development Council any longer reflected the needs and realities of the United Kingdom economy in the 1990s. Of course, we want to talk to industry and to hear its concerns, but I do not think that discussions in the council were helpful or enlightening. In terms of the work carried out by the sectoral working parties, my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade has announced plans for the reorganisation of his Department and the sponsoring divisions. That is a much more sensible way to listen and talk to industry about the future as industry sees it.

Mr. Arnold: Does my right hon. Friend agree that his decision puts the final seal on the former way of running the British economy—the corporatist way?

Mr. Lamont: As I have repeatedly said, the only way to improve our living standards and increase our share of world trade is by improving our competitiveness and keeping down inflation. That is the responsibility of Government. The discussions at the National Economic Development Council did not contribute to policy in any way.

Mr. Morgan: Does the Chancellor nevertheless agree that one of the unfortunate side-effects of the abolition of the National Economic Development Council is that the Chancellor will no longer have the opportunity to hear views on economic policy that do not coincide with those of the Treasury? On the same lines, does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the study by the National Institute of Economic and Social Research of economic modelling during the 1980s, which was paid for by the Treasury, showed that the Treasury's performance in such modelling was disastrous? The Treasury's thought police attempted to ban from public funding institutions such as Wynne Godley's outfit at Cambridge university, which correctly forecast the appalling levels of the previous depression and this one. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that there should no longer be an attempt to create a monopoly on economic policy by withdrawing public funding from universities whose ideas are different from those of the Treasury?

Mr. Lamont: The hon. Gentleman must surely know that decisions about funding individual universities, individual research bodies and individual eocnomic groups are not taken by the Treasury or by the Government. As for the hon. Gentleman's first point, of course I have made it clear that I am prepared to talk to the Trades Union Congress and to hear its views, but I do not believe that the confrontational talks which took place


so regularly in the National Economic Development Council were of any use to anyone—indeed, many people who attended them were sheer bored by what went on.

Mr. Tony Banks: Why, then, do the Japanese and the Germans find it valuable to have continuing dialogue with their trade unions when their countries are a damned sight more successful economically than ours? Why will the Chancellor not treat the trade unions as valuable partners within the economy and start talking to them and stop treating them like traitors?

Mr. Lamont: Unlike the hon. Gentleman, I do not believe that decisions in the economy are made at the level of the sector. They are made by individuals and by firms. That is the way the economy of this country works. If there are such institutions in Germany or Japan —I am not sure whether what the hon. Gentleman says is right—perhaps that is a comment on the nature of the discussions that take place.

VAT (Bait)

Mr. Steen: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will review the current VAT liability placed on fishermen buying fresh fish for bait.

Mr. Nelson: The Government have no current plans for a formal review of the VAT liability of supplies of bait generally. However, Customs and Excise have been asked to contact the fishermen's representatives with a view to identifying specific problems that they may be experienc-ing in the application of the current rules and exploring possible solutions.

Mr. Steen: The problem is very simple. If an old lady goes to buy some fish for her cat from the fish trader, she pays no VAT. If the same fish is delivered to the quay on a shell fishermen's boat, immediately the fish is delivered for bait he has to pay VAT. That seems a crazy arrangement as anything to do with shell fishermen's boats is zero rated, so why should they pay VAT on that fish when the little old lady does not? More importantly, will the Minister do something to stop the terrible cash flow problems of shell fishermen who face serious difficulties on the south coast of Devon?

Mr. Nelson: I know that my hon. Friend the Member for South Hams (Mr. Steen) has championed the cause of crabbers in south Devon and a particular case of arrears of tax. I am pleased to advise him that Customs and Excise will not be calling for arrears of tax in the particular case about which I know that he is concerned, nor in others where a genuine misunderstanding has arisen as to the correct treatment of supplies of bait. However, VAT is applicable to fresh fish when it is bait and is held up for sale as such.

Exchange Rate Mechanism

Mr. Enright: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what progress has been made towards joining the narrow band of the exchange rate mechanism and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Dorrell: Sterling will move to the narrow band of the ERM in due course at the current central rate of DM2·95.

Mr. Enright: If the Minister is so confident in what he is doing, when will he bring down interest rates?

Mr. Dorrell: They have already been brought down nine times from 15 to 10 per cent.

Sir Teddy Taylor: As the former Prime Minister whose Government forced the ERM business through the House now appears, according to The Evening Standard, to be having second thoughts about the ERM business, would it not be wise and helpful for the Government in a quiet and scholarly way to reconsider the whole ERM business and ask where is the logic of pretending that the pound is worth something that it is not when it is being accompanied, and probably partly caused by, huge Government borrowing, massive unemployment and a chronic balance of payments problem? Is there not a case for the Government quietly and thoughtfully to ask whether there is any sense in that at all?

Mr. Dorrell: The logic of our determination to maintain our position within the ERM is our wish to match our standards of monetary control and discipline not, like the Labour party, to the average but to the highest standards in Europe. Our determination to do so is based on our recognition of the fact that not to do so would be to impose a quite unnecessary competitive disadvantage on British industry.

Mr. Bell: Regardless of when we shall be joining the narrow band of the ERM, can the Financial Secretary share with the House the Treasury's views on a general realignment of currencies within the mechanism?

Mr. Dorrell: Our policy is clearly to move to the narrow band at DM2·95. There is no realignment in prospect and we do not seek one.

Mr. Ian Taylor: Does my hon. Friend agree that those who wish to cut and run on interest rates would once again inflict on this country the inflationary problems which have made us uncompetitive and would, through inflation, once again try to disguise the failure to adjust to international markets? Will he therefore reaffirm the Government's intention to maintain the central rate against the deutschmark and to move to the narrow band as soon as possible so that this country can once again be competitive in the international arena and British industry can flourish?

Mr. Dorrell: Yes, I can give my hon. Friend that absolute affirmation. If we consider 30 years of economic history, we should be conscious that not to provide that discipline is to provide a background which is a needless impediment to the development of investment and long-term planning in British industry, especially the manufacturing sector, which is so often espoused by hon. Members.

Mr. Boyce: Will the Minister be kind enough to tell the House who was responsible for increasing interest rates to 15 per cent. in the first place?

Mr. Dorrell: This Government have always made clear their determination to use interest rates to bring inflation under control to match, as I said earlier, our standards of monetary control with the highest in Europe.

Financial Services Regulation

Mr. French: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received concern-ing the reform of financial services regulation.

Mr. Nelson: I have received a number of such representations.

Mr. French: Does my hon. Friend recall Sir David Walker, on his retirement as chairman of the Securities and Investments Board, saying that the regulatory organisation is too fragmented, especially as it relates to enforcement and policing? Does my hon. Friend accept that there is a growing feeling among practitioners and members of the public that the Financial Services Act 1986 needs revision, and will he apply himself to that?

Mr. Nelson: The overall effectiveness of the regulatory structure is a matter of great importance, as my hon. Friend acknowledges. Following the Treasury's assumption of responsibility for regulating financial services, I intend to keep the arrangements carefully under review. This is a matter which I shall want to discuss with the new chairman of the SIB in due course.

Mr. Hain: Is the Minister aware of the reports of Sir Jeremy Morse and Sir David Walker in respect of the Lloyd's insurance market? There have been more than half a dozen such reports in the past 20 years, each followed by small reforms and further scandals. The latest report shows evidence of financial mismanagement, insider dealing and fraud. Is it not time for the Government to introduce proper statutory regulation of Lloyd's to ensure that it stops acting as a law unto itself and that there is modernisation of Britain's financial services sector?

Mr. Nelson: I take careful note of what the hon. Gentleman says. I have read the reports to which he refers. Matters relating to the insurance industry are more properly the concern of my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade.

Mr. Hawkins: Does my hon. Friend agree that we are fortunate to have the most developed financial services market in Europe? Regulatory regimes are essential for consumer protection, but is it not also essential that we have a simple regulatory structure to ensure that we maintain our European competitiveness in financial services?

Mr. Nelson: I am obliged to my hon. Friend for reminding the House of the signal importance of the financial services and banking industries to the economy and to the balance of payments. The expertise, prosperity and ingenuity of the financial services and banking industries are of tremendous importance, and very often we denigrate them to the great disadvantage of the national interest.

Mr. Boateng: Given that more than 40,000 old and vulnerable people stand to lose their homes as a result of the home income plan scam and the Minister told us yesterday that some building societies are refusing to co-operate with the building societies ombudsman and he has no power to compel them to do so, will the hon. Gentleman consider bringing forward measures to extend the powers of the ombudsman so that he can protect all vulnerable consumers?

Mr. Nelson: As I made clear to the hon. Gentleman during our extensive debate on this important issue yesterday, the majority of building societies are permitting investigations by the ombudsman concerned. It is to be hoped that the expressions of opinion from both sides of the House will be heard by those few remaining building societies which are having difficulty accepting the inquiries. That is the proper line to pursue for the time being.

Public Expenditure Planning

Mr. Bradley: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his policy on forecasting public spending planning totals in the proposed new budget cycle.

Mr. Portillo: Next year the public expenditure planning totals will continue to be agreed by the Cabinet following discussions between ministerial colleagues and the Chief Secretary.

Mr. Bradley: In the Budget last March, the Chancellor forecast a public sector borrowing requirement of £28 billion. What is the forecast today?

Mr. Portillo: We publish forecasts twice a year and we shall publish our next forecast when it falls due.

Mr. Wilkinson: In last autumn's expenditure statement, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor said that the net contribution of the United Kingdom to the European Community this financial year would be £2·5 billion, with slightly higher figures for the two subsequent years. Is that still the forecast or can my right hon. Friend give us any hope that there will be an alleviation of that unnecessary burden?

Mr. Portillo: I have no change to announce to the published forecast. The flows vary from time to time. If my hon. Friend is saying that it is important to continue to bear down on the expenditure of the European Community, and hence on the contribution that we make, I entirely agree with him. Indeed, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor has been engaged upon that exercise. It was good that we negotiated an abatement at Fontainebleau, which so far has resulted in a saving to the United Kingdom of £12 billion.

Mr. Denzil Davies: Is it still the Government's policy to reduce the public sector borrowing requirement to the percentage level—3 per cent. of gross domestic product. I believe—established by the Maastricht treaty?

Mr. Portillo: Yes, it is our intention to meet the criteria for convergence set out in the Maastricht treaty. Indeed, it is our intention to reduce borrowing to about zero over the medium term.

Inflation

Mr. Duncan: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer which EC country had the largest fall in retail price inflation in the year to May 1992.

Mr. Ottaway: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer which EC country had the largest fall in retail price inflation in the year to May 1992.

Mr. Lamont: Of all EC countries, Greece had the largest fall in its headline inflation rate in the year to May 1992; the United Kingdom had the largest fall of the major EC countries.

Mr. Duncan: I welcome that news. Is my right hon. Friend aware that producer output inflation is now down to 2·7 per cent? As that is the lowest figure since 1969, does he agree that it puts British industry in a strong position to emerge from the recession and to prove increasingly competitive in world markets?

Mr. Lamont: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Producer price inflation is a good forecast of the headline rate of inflation. My hon. Friend will be aware that the underlying rate of inflation—the retail prices index minus mortgage interest payments—has already fallen sharply recently. All that is good news for exports, for competitiveness and for recovery.

Mr. Ottaway: Does my hon. Friend realise that whatever the mixed feelings about the exchange rate mechanism, his answer shows what an effective weapon it is in the battle against inflation? At the same time, does it not provide a stable platform for smooth recovery, with no necessity to resort to the stop-go policies advocated by the Opposition?

Mr. Lamont: There is no doubt that the exchange rate mechanism has been extremely effective in lowering inflation in those countries that are members of it. Furthermore, my hon. Friend makes the good point that if this country were ever to leave the ERM, we should still have to compete against countries with a low level of inflation gained from membership of the ERM. That is why we should stick with the discipline of the ERM, which we believe is good for recovery and will be good for the medium-term competitiveness of this country.

Mr. Pike: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that he is talking a load of bilge when he claims a reduction in the inflation rate? Was not the high level that it reached a result of Conservative policies? Is it not nonsense for the Government to claim credit for bringing down the inflation rate when they were responsible for its rise?

Mr. Lamont: If I had compared the level of inflation with that of previous Labour Governments, the hon.Gentleman would not have found that a very happy comparison either.

Mr. Tony Lloyd: Does the Chancellor accept that if a Government who fail to bear down on inflation are financially dodgy, a Government who have no policy for full employment are morally bankrupt?

Mr. Lamont: The fallacy in the hon. Gentleman's approach is thinking that we can have growth in employment without an inflation rate equal to or better than that of our competitors. Britain is dependent upon trade. More than 30 per cent. of Britain's GDP is exported and imported. Britain cannot compete, cannot have growth in employment, unless it has a level of inflation equal to the best in the EC and among our major trading partners.

Mr. Butcher: I agree with my right hon. Friend that the exchange rate mechanism is an external discipline bearing down on inflation, but is it not possible to legislate for internal independent bodies which can perform the same

function? Bearing in mind the history of the Bretton Woods agreement, the gold standard and the sterling area, each of which collapsed for good reasons, does my right hon. Friend think that it may be prudent to have alternative domestic policies in place in case the same thing should happen to the ERM?

Mr. Lamont: If my hon. Friend looks back at the period of fixed exhange rates, he will find that the inflation performance, not just of Britain but of many other countries, was a lot better than during the period of floating exchange rates. The ERM has a proven track record in reducing inflation. I repeat: even if we were not part of the ERM, we would have to compete with those countries that have succeeded the hard way in reducing inflation, and we must do that if we are to provide for small businesses, to provide for employment and to achieve growth in the future. That is the way the Germans and the French have done it. I do not know why my hon. Friends think that this country cannot succeed where other countries have.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRIME MINISTER

Engagements

Ql. Mrs. Helen Jackson: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 9 July.

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Tony Newton): I have been asked to reply.
My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is on his way to Helsinki to attend a conference on security and co-operation in Europe.

Mrs. Jackson: Will the Leader of the House be so kind as to ask the Prime Minister whether he agrees that the prompt and efficient administration of public money is his responsibility and therefore, that it is his and his Government's responsibility that many of my constituents are waiting more than six months to have their disability living allowance claims processed? Will he ask the Prime Minister to join me in commiserating with Mr. Michael Bichard who has had no fewer than 26 parliamentary questions and hundreds of letters of complaint referred to him from hon. Members?

Mr. Newton: I am not sure that I shall invite my right hon. Friend to agree with all that, but I am sure that my right hon. Friend will agree about the duty that we all have to ensure the proper administration of public money, about the satisfaction, which the hon. Lady has not expressed, in the level of demand for the extremely successful new disability benefits, and about the Government's determination to ensure that those benefits are effectively delivered.

Sir John Hannam: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 9 July.

Mr. Newton: I have been asked to reply.
I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Sir John Hannam: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the tremendous success of the health service reforms, especially in my part of Devon where the general practitioner fund holdings and the trusts are working for


the benefit of staff and patients? Will he welcome the changed attitude of the British Medical Association, which shows the popularity and success of the reforms?

Mr. Newton: Yes, I very much welcome that. It reflects the fact that practical experience throughout the country is demonstrating the benefits of those reforms. There is clearly also a wide welcome for the announcement made yesterday by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health, which will build further on their success.

Dr. John Cunningham: What reasons does the Leader of the House give for the Prime Minister's failure to achieve his objectives at the economic summit in Munich?

Mr. Newton: An economic summit, whether it takes place in Munich or anywhere else, is a gathering of people designed to achieve agreement on the pursuit of common objectives. No one member of such a gathering can force the others to agree. It is clear, however, that useful progress was made at Munich on key objectives relating both to western relations with Russia and to advancing the objectives of the GATT round. Progress was also made in a number of other ways.

Dr. Cunningham: Is it not clear that no amount of vacuous communiques can disguise the fact that, for the second year running, Britain is bottom of the G7 league in relation to growth, investment and job creation? As even Lady Thatcher is now warning of economic catastrophe in Britain, is it not time for new economic and industrial policies for our country? Will the Government act now or will they simply continue to wring their hands and do nothing?

Mr. Newton: It is clear that the action taken by the Government in recent months is creating a secure foundation for the country to emerge from the recession in the latter part of this year. If the hon. Gentleman is in a quoting frame of mind, he may wish to know that in a press release issued only three or four days ago the Institute of Directors said that half the directors questioned in June were more optimistic. That is the highest level of sustained optimism since August 1988.

Dr. Cunningham: Twelve months ago, the Prime Minister claimed a triumph for the economic summit in London, and the Government did nothing. Will they do nothing again about the appalling misery that they are creating in this country?

Mr. Newton: The Government will continue with the sustained application of policies which are producing the conditions for recovery, and doing so successfully.

Mr. Hague: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 9 July.

Mr. Newton: I have been asked to reply.
I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Hague: Will my right hon. Friend join me in welcoming this week's announcement of an order for the fourth Trident submarine? Does he agree that the three best recent additions to the future security of the nation are the ordering of the submarine, the re-election of a Government who had the consistency and good sense to proceed with the order, and the defeat of Opposition

parties whose recommendations vary from scrapping this important deterrent altogether to sending submarines out to sea with no weapons on board?

Mr. Newton: In a word, I agree with everything that my hon. Friend has said.

Ms. Lynne: Can the Leader of the House explain how we can take the proposals on health promotion seriously when the Government are presiding over the collapse of national health service dentistry?

Mr. Newton: It is absurd to suggest that the Government are presiding over the collapse, as the hon. Lady puts it, of NHS dentistry, given the increases in NHS treatment, the number of dentists and their remuneration over the past few years.

Mr. Haselhurst: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 9 July.

Mr. Newton: I have been asked to reply.
I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Haselhurst: In the light of the targets set in the Government's White Paper, published yesterday, will the Government consider removing tobacco products from the calculation of the retail prices index? If we believe that price is the main deterrent to smokers, is it not ridiculous that the Chancellor should feel any inhibition about increasing duty on tobacco products because of the effect that that would have on the cost of living and on benefits related to it?

Mr. Newton: My hon. Friend will know that an advisory committee looks carefully and independently at the proper make-up of the RPI. I would not wish to dictate to that committee how it should do its work. I should point out, however, referring to the figures given yesterday by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health. that the increases in tobacco prices in recent years do not suggest that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor has been suffering from any inhibition in that respect.

Mr. Barnes: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 9 July.

Mr. Newton: I have been asked to reply.
I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Barnes: At 4 o'clock this afternoon in the Jubilee Room the Spastics Society will launch a report on the problems of disabled people in the 1992 general election. Is the Leader of the House aware that many disabled people could not gain access to polling stations in the election and also had problems with the postal voting system? Will he ensure that the report, entitled "Polls Apart", is studied at the highest level and that action is taken to ensure that everyone, able-bodied or disabled, who is entitled to exercise the franchise, is given access to the procedure?

Mr. Newton: As a former Minister for disabled people myself, I would not wish to do anything with such a report other than to examine it carefully and draw it to the attention of those concerned, returning officers and others. The hon. Gentleman's concern is legitimate.

Sir Peter Tapsell: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 9 July.

Mr. Newton: I have been asked to reply.
I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Sir Peter Tapsell: Now that Germany has made it clear that it intends to continue for a long period in the maintenance of economic policies which are driving the rest of Europe from recession into slump, so as to re-equip its eastern provinces, is it not more than ever necessary for British Ministers to show the same resolution in supporting British industry? As this country has determined its own money supply for several centuries, why do Ministers suddenly find that they can no longer do that without having their hands held by a group of German bank clerks? Has not the time now come for us to leave the exchange rate mechanism, at least until such time as German interest rates are reduced to a level compatible with the needs of the whole of the rest of Europe?

Mr. Newton: The British Government—with support from both sides of the House, in my recollection—accepted the disciplines of the ERM as the essential basis for a British policy designed to bring down inflation and to create the conditions for a sound economy. I see no basis for departing from that.

Ms. Primarolo: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 9 July.

Mr. Newton: I have been asked to reply.
I refer the hon. Lady to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Ms. Primarolo: Will the Leader of the House explain why, under the citizens charter, someone whose train is late is entitled to claim compensation, but when the Government fail to ensure that people's applications for disability allowances are speedily processed, those people are not entitled to claim compensation against the Government? Will the right hon. Gentleman suggest to the Prime Minister that proposals for such compensation should he produced as a matter of urgency, to ensure the efficiency of government?

Mr. Newton: As I believe the hon. Lady knows, in certain fairly limited circumstances compensation may he payable for a failure of the Department—for negligence, perhaps. The key is to ensure, as the Department is actively seeking to do, that the high level of demand for the new disability benefits—having introduced them myself, I welcome that high level of demand—is met by the administration. That is what my colleagues in the Department are seeking to do.

Mr. Mark Robinson: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 9 July.

Mr. Newton: I have been asked to reply.
I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Robinson: Will my right hon. Friend join me in welcoming yesterday's White Paper on "The Health of the Nation"? Will he also welcome the fact that, at a time of vastly increased resources for the health service, the

Government are pushing ahead to make further improvements to the health of the nation and will continue to do so?

Mr. Newton: I agree with my hon. Friend. Yesterday's White Paper is a significant development in the success of the national health service and in its further success for the rest of this century and beyond. It marks a significant move from the health service's being, in old-fashioned terms, an illness service, to its being a genuine health service.

Mr. Darling: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 9 July.

Mr. Newton: I have been asked to reply.
I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Darling: Why did the Government forget to mention in their manifesto of just three months ago that they intended to privatise water supply in Scotland?

Mr. Newton: The hon. Gentleman is aware that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland has had those matters under consideration. He will also be aware that my right hon. Friend will set out the basis of Government policy in the appropriate way, at the appropriate time.

Mr. George Howarth: Is the Leader of the House aware that this is national housing week and that housing provision and the construction industry are gripped in a crisis? Would not this be an appropriate time to organise the phased release of the £7 billion of local authority capital receipts to solve the housing crisis and the crisis that the Government have engineered in the construction industry?

Mr. Newton: I am tempted to refer the hon. Gentleman to a reply that I myself gave on that point on Tuesday. The Government are in the process of making £6 billion available to housing associations over the next three years. That will produce about 150,000 new homes for rent or low-cost ownership.

Mr. Moate: Recalling the visit to London by thousands of fishermen earlier this week, does my right hon. Friend agree that it is wrong to ask Parliament to impose tough restrictions on British fishermen which will not be applied to Common Market fishermen—including those who fish in British-controlled waters, with some taking British quota? As the proposals are clearly unfair and will almost certainly be doomed to failure without the industry's co-operation, will my right hon. Friend consult his colleagues about withdrawing them now and starting new consultations?

Mr. Newton: I certainly cannot undertake to enter consultations with a view to withdrawing proposals which are most important in relation to the conservation of fish stocks and, therefore, to the long-term future of our fishing industry. Other member states will be subject to Community targets. Our aim is, and will remain, to ensure that the burden of adjustment is fairly shared.

Business of the House

Dr. John Cunningham: Will the Leader of the House state the business for next week?

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Tony Newton): Yes, Madam. The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY 13 JULY—Debate on the report from the Select Committee on sittings of the House on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
Motions relating to the nominations of departmental Select Committees.
TUESDAY 14 JULY—Remaining stages of the Sea Fish (Conservation) Bill.
Proceedings on the Protection of Badgers Bill  [Lords], the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Bill [Lords] and the Tribunals and Inquiries Bill [Lords]. These are consolidation measures.
Motion on office costs allowance.
WEDNESDAY 15 JuLY—Proceedings on the Human Fertilisation and Embryology (Disclosure of Information) Bill [Lords].
Motion on the Education (Assisted Places) (Amendment) Regulations.
Motion on the Value Added Tax (Payments on Account) Order.
Motion on the Value Added Tax (Cars) (Amendment) (No. 2) Order.
THURSDAY 16 JULY—Debates on the Adjournment.
The House will also wish to know that European Standing Committee B will meet on Wednesday 21 October at 10·30 am to consider European Community document No. 5894/92 concerning relations with Libya.
It may also be for the convenience of the House to know that the provisional business for the first week after the summer Adjournment will be as follows:
MONDAY 19 OCTOBER—Second Reading of the Prisoners and Criminal Proceedings (Scotland) Bill [Lords].
TUESDAY 20 OCTOBER—Remaining stages of the Cardiff Bay Barrage Bill
WEDNESDAY 21 OCTOBER—Opposition Day (4th allotted day). There will be a debate on an Opposition motion, subject to be announced.
THURSDAY 22 OCTOBER—Debate on the White Paper "Health of the Nation", on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
FRIDAY 23 OCTOBER—Debate on the policing of London, on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.

[Wednesday 21 October:

EUROPEAN STANDING COMMITTEE B

Relevant European Community Document

5894/92 Relations with Libya

Relevant Report of the European Legislation Committee HC 79-ii (1992–93)]

Dr. Cunningham: I thank the Leader of the House for giving us notice of the business for the first week following the long summer recess. However, is it not rather curious that he has been able to give us that information three months in advance but has not yet adopted one of the simplest recommendations of the Jopling Committee—to give us the business two weeks in advance? If he can give us the information three months in advance, why has he

not been able to adopt that Jopling Committee recommendation, which does not need a resolution of the House for its implementation, before now?
Why are we to debate the Jopling Committee report next week once again on a motion for the Adjournment of the House? Why is the Leader of the House not producing some specific recommendations for action to change the hours and working practices of the House, which would be widely welcomed?
May we have an assurance that, before the House rises for the recess next week, there will be statements in the Chamber on the Bingham report into the collapse of BCCI? Can we also have statements while the House is still sitting about the Government's White Papers on transport and education? Does the Leader of the House accept that it would be an abuse of the House for those very important White Papers to be published once the House has gone into recess, when hon. Members would have no opportunity to question the Cabinet colleagues of the Leader of the House about them?
Can the Leader of the House assure us that he will table today the Government's motion on Members' allowances for employment of staff and the financing of their offices? It is surely important that we see the terms of the Government's motion in good time for possible amendments to be tabled and so that we can all clearly understand the Government's intentions in that regard.
May I press the Leader of the House to ask his right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary to make a statement before the summer Adjournment on the future of the primary-purpose rule, which affects people and their families the length and breadth of this country? That is an essential matter for almost all hon. Members. It affects many of our constituents and we should have a statement from the Government clarifying their position.

Mr. Newton: Taking those questions nearly in reverse order, I can confirm that I expect to table later today a resolution on the office costs allowance for the consideration of the House. I will also obviously transmit the requests of the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) for various statements to those to whom the requests are directed. I will do my best to ensure that important statements which need to be made are made in the appropriate way to the House.
The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the timing of the Bingham report is a matter for Lord Justice Bingham and not for the Government. I cannot give the hon. Gentleman the undertaking that he sought in that respect.
With regard to the hon. Gentleman's questions on the Jopling report, perhaps we might leave the first of them for discussion in the debate. His question appeared to be an advance contribution to that debate.
The debate is taking place on a motion for the Adjournment of the House for two reasons. First, as I have said on several occasions, it seemed appropriate with a substantial number of new Members and with an entirely different House of Commons that there should be a further general debate on the proposals before we proceed with what will, in some circumstances, be very complex details, on which we may need further guidance from the House. It is appropriate that, in the light of the general indications that the House provides on Monday, there will have to be further discussions between the usual channels, of which no doubt the hon. Member for Copeland may be part.

Mr. John Greenway: Will my right hon. Friend arrange for our right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Defence to make a statement in the House next week? It is widely rumoured that a consultation document will be published on Tuesday which will lead to the closure of a number of REME depots, including one in my constituency, with a loss of more than 200 jobs. The consultation for such a proposal will expire during the recess. Does my right hon. Friend agree that, if there are to be changes in the support establishment for the British Army, the House should debate them before the decisions are taken?

Mr. Newton: My hon. Friend will not expect me to comment on whatever speculation he has picked up, but I will undertake to draw his remarks to the attention of my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Defence.

Sir David Steel: May I in parenthesis support the shadow Leader of the House in arguing that the matter of the primary-purpose rule should not be left until the middle of the summer recess? It must he dealt with before we rise. Will next Tuedsay's debate on office costs be cast wide enough to allow the argument to be put that those cash allowances, demeaning and misleading as they are, should be abolished altogether in favour of providing hon. Members with the staff and equipment necessary to do the job?

Mr. Newton: It will ultimately be for the Chair rather than for myself to determine the parameters of the debate, but I should be surprised if it were not open to the right hon. Gentleman to raise that point if he wished to do so.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Madam Speaker: Order. I should be much obliged if hon. Members would ask one question. I could then call all hon. Members who wish to ask a question, and we could have speedy answers. That is a much more efficient way of conducting our business.

Mr. James Paice: Is it correct that the Government's promised proposals on the change of the law on gipsies is to be deferred until the autumn? If that is the case, is it to be hoped that that is because officials and Ministers in the Department of the Environment now realise that my constituents and many others will not put up with those parasites continuing to live off the backs of law-abiding property owners and citizens? We want some draconian legislation to deal with the matter.

Mr. Newton: My hon. Friend has obviously registered that I have not been able to announce a debate on those matters in the two weeks that I have covered in my statement, but I do not think that anyone is under any illusions about the strength of feeling among my hon. Friend and others: I certainly assure him of that.

Mr. Tony Benn: Will the Leader of the House recognise that, in the uncertain international situation that exists and could persist until October, the House would expect to be recalled before any British forces were committed to military action or British bases were made available for military action? Will the right hon.
Gentleman give an assurance on behalf of the Government that the House would be recalled before any of our bases or troops were involved?

Mr. Newton: I note what the right hon. Gentleman has said. Obviously, if it were judged that the situation required it, I would be prepared to make the necessary arrangements, but the right hon. Gentleman will be aware that such matters would normally be the subject of discussion through the usual channels, and that is appropriate.

Mr. Harry Greenway: May I ask my right hon. Friend for a debate next week on school organisation so that I may bring before the House an application from the London borough of Ealing for a reorganisation of 108 schools which have been without permanent heads for nearly two years? A decision from the Government is urgent, and the matter should be debated in the House as soon as possible.

Mr. Newton: My hon. Friend would probably be somewhat surprised if, in response to his question, I immediately changed the business that I have announced for next week. He will be aware that there are several opportunities for raising all sorts of matters, one of which is to occur as soon as this business statement is over—the three-hour debate on the Adjournment.

Mr. Tony Banks: Does the Leader of the House recall that I asked him last week whether there would be a statement from the Minister of Agriculture on the outcome of the International Whaling Commission conference in Glasgow? He said that he would pass on that request. Did he pass on that request? As we did not have a statement, could he pass it on again, because we need to hear what the Minister feels about the disgraceful decision of Norway and Iceland about the possibility of taking up commercial whaling?

Mr. Newton: I will certainly undertake to re-pass on the hon. Gentleman's request. He will be aware, however, that my right hon. Friend gave quite an extensive written answer last Friday, in which he made clear his views and the views of most other participants about the Norwegian action.

Mr. Nicholas Budgen: May I add my voice to those who would like to hear a statement on the Government's proposals for the primary-purpose rule? May I offer my apologies to my constituents for the support that I gave the Government on the primary-purpose rule? I was unwise enough to believe that the House still decided immigration policies. Since we now find that our European masters decide such matters, will the Government please make a statement to explain to the House what little power is left to it?

Mr. Newton: My hon. Friend will find that the judgment to which he refers was a great deal more narrowly drawn than the conclusions that he has drawn from it. Of course, I undertake to pass on his observations to my right hon. and learned Friend.

Mr. David Trimble: May we have an early statement on the Amnesty International report published today which, of course, largely repeats and amplifies the usual propaganda against the security forces in Northern Ireland? Such a statement would be


particularly useful because we can see from the Press Association's summary of the report that the propaganda has been too effective. The Press Association uses the word "notorious" about Northern Ireland's Diplock courts—a regrettable lapse from its usual standards of impartiality. As the Leader of the House will know, the record shows that there is cause for more concern about English juries than about Northern Ireland judges.

Mr. Newton: I will draw the hon. Gentleman's remarks to the attention of my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.

Mr. James Hill: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the headlines in the Evening Standard this afternoon? Are we to have our economic policy led from the other place, or are we to have an economic debate here? Can we not answer the vague remarks that have been made in private? Is it not time that the Prime Minister and the whole Cabinet took hold of the situation and arranged for a separate debate in the House on the economy?

Mr. Newton: We have very recently had a debate on the economy. I have seen the newspaper report to which my hon. Friend refers. It appeared highly speculative. All that I should like to say is that I have read it with interest.

Mr. Greville Janner: Following the sad misjudgment of The Sunday Times in employing the services of that hero of the modern Nazis, David Irving, could we have a statement on the defects in the Public Order Act 1986 and the Race Relations Act 1976, which allowed that to happen? Does the Leader of the House agree that it is an abomination and an incitement —

Madam Speaker: Order. We are asking business questions for next week. We are not asking whether Ministers agree on various matters. We must stick with business questions.

Mr. Janner: As part of the Government's statement, could they express their view on the denial of the holocaust, which was an incitement not only to those of us who suffered grievous loss as a result of the holocaust, which happened with the knowledge of Irving's heroes Goebbels and Hitler, but to all of us who remember the past and are determined that it shall not happen again?

Mr. Newton: Many on both sides of the House will understand the hon. Gentleman's reasons for raising that matter. All of us would wish to join in the condemnation of what happened in the holocaust.

Mr. Julian Brazier: Following his welcome answer to the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn), does my right hon. Friend recognise that there is strong support in many parts of the House for the Government's cautious line on risking British lives in Yugoslavia? Does he agree that, before some of our hotter-headed friends on the continent try to talk us into further action, they should consider their position and perhaps consider sending German fighters, French lorries —

Madam Speaker: Order. I am a most tolerant Speaker —[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]—but I will certainly not have political statements made during business questions.
If the hon. Gentleman is prepared to put a question that is in order to the Leader of the House, I shall hear it. Otherwise, I shall call the next Member.

Mr. Brazier: I ask again, and I reinforce the point made by the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn), that there should be a debate in the House before British troops are committed in Yugoslavia. There is widespread anxiety among people from all parts of the political spectrum and many parts of Britain about the idea of British troops being put at risk in combat roles on the ground.

Mr. Newton: I very much note what my hon. Friend has said. He is certainly right to expect that the Government will remain cautious in their approach to the matter.

Mr. Thomas Graham: Will the Leader of the House arrange for the Secretary of State for Employment to make a statement about 120 unemployed constituents of mine who worked at a company called Lawtecs, six of whom are still waiting after almost a full year to receive their redundancy pay? Surely that is a disgrace which the House should not tolerate.

Mr. Newton: Clearly, I am not familiar with details of the case, but I shall ensure that my right hon. Friend looks into what the hon. Gentleman has said.

Mr. Peter Fry: May I put it to my right hon. Friend that there is a case for an urgent debate on the future of civil aviation? The Government were recently euphoric over an agreement in Brussels about the liberalisation of European air services, but people who have studied the small print and the deferral of the effect of that agreement feel that many British airlines will not gain very much very quickly from it. Surely the House should have the opportunity to debate the issue, in the best interests of British aviation.

Mr. Newton: Again, my hon. Friend will be aware that there are a number of opportunities today and before the House is due to go into recess to raise a variety of matters. I hope that he will be fortunate in achieving one of those opportunities. I cannot promise to change the business in the forthcoming week to accommodate such a debate.

Mr. David Winnick: Would it be possible before the House goes into recess for the Prime Minister to make a statement giving his views on how keen he is to have the ever ready advice—although it is friendly advice, I am sure—of his predecessor? Would it not be useful for us to know what he feels about Lady Thatcher giving her views on various subjects at every opportunity?

Mr. Newton: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman has good reasons for asking the question. I do not want to add to what I said a few moments ago to my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test (Mr. Hill).

Mr. John Gorst: May I urge my right hon. Friend to go a little further than he did in answering my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire, South-East (Mr. Paice) on the subject of caravan sites? It is a most important subject, and the Caravan Sites Act 1968 is proving unworkable. May we urge him to produce a statement on Government policy before we rise for the recess?

Mr. Newton: My hon. Friend not only can but evidently has urged me to do so. While acknowledging the strength


of feeling on the matter, I cannot give him quite the undertaking that he seeks. As was the case with my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire, South-East, who raised the matter earlier, I shall ensure that that concern is brought to the attention of my right hon. Friend.

Mr. Alex Salmond: Is there not the strongest case for a statement from the Secretary of State for Scotland on the 1,300 job losses at Ardersier, which represent 5 per cent. of the Highland region's work force? In such a statement, would the Secretary of State have any policy initiative to announce, whether it be seeking objective 1 status, accelerating oilfield development, studying competitive tendering, or moving oil jobs from London to the north of Scotland? Or will the Government stand idly by and watch an economic blizzard descend on the north of Scotland?

Mr. Newton: On behalf of my right hon. Friend, I can assure the hon. Gentleman that he will certainly be concerned to do everything that is proper and appropriate to assist with the difficulties faced by the people to whom the hon. Gentleman has referred. Of course, the Government's efforts in developing the work of the Highlands and Islands Enterprise Board, which I am sure will seek to help in that respect, is a good example.

Mr. Roger Knapman: Further to the question of my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen), is my right hon. Friend aware of an article in The Guardian on 8 July, headed "Euro court punches holes in migrants laws", in which it states that our right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary has promised that a copy of the draft convention on European frontier controls will be placed in the Commons Library? As yet, the paper is not in the Library. Could my right hon. Friend ensure that it is there soon, as the summer recess approaches rapidly?

Mr. Newton: I made some comment on the first point to which my hon. Friend adverted in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen). On the latter point, I shall certainly make inquiries about the position and seek to ensure that what my hon. Friend has asked for is achieved.

Mrs. Audrey Wise: Will the Leader of the House arrange for a statement next week to announce the extension of the Jubilee line, which would provide thousands of construction jobs in London and many jobs for those who manufacture trains, such as the work force at GEC in my constituency?

Mr. Newton: The hon. Lady is well aware of the repeated statements by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport and others about the basis on which the Jubilee line would proceed. I do not think that I can go beyond that today.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Before my association with the Select Committee on Health is arbitrarily terminated, may I, on behalf of that Committee of the previous Parliament, ask my right hon. Friend when the Secretary of State for Health will come to the House to make a statement on the Government's reaction and response to the Committee's report on maternity services, which I remind the House was published on 4 March and should have been responded to long before now?

Mr. Newton: The hon. Gentleman, to my knowledge and from my observation—

Mr. Winterton: No longer friend?

Mr. Newton: My hon. Friend, whom I observed and listened to with care, was in the Chamber yesterday for the statement of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health on "Health of the Nation" and he will be aware that that very report was raised by the hon. Member for Preston (Mrs. Wise). I do not believe that I can add to the comments that my right hon. Friend made at that time.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: In view of the fact that we have a most tolerant Speaker, will there be a statement next week on the extraordinary information which has emerged from the Appeal Court, in relation to the case of Mr. David Mackenzie, whose sperm count and fertility make it quite clear that he was not responsible for the murder of Hilda Murrell? Could we have a statement on that, of which I have given notice to the right hon. Gentleman?

Mr. Newton: I have nothing to add to the categorical assurance that was given—and repeated subsequently—by the Minister of State, Home Office in his letter to the hon. Gentleman at the end of 1984 of his belief that the security and intelligence services were not involved in any way in the death of Mrs. Murrell.

Mr. Rupert Allason: Will there be a statement next week on the water industry, bearing in mind the fact that a Government discussion paper on this topic is imminent and the terrible hardship endured by the people in the south-west, who last year experienced a 16 per cent. increase in their water rates, had another 16 per cent. increase this year and are likely to face a third 16 per cent. increase next year? Water metering is an extremely important issue. Will my right hon. Friend please arrange a statement either next week or certainly in the week when the House returns?

Mr. Newton: We have had a substantial debate on water issues within the past fortnight, and I do not believe that I can promise another within the next week. I will, of course, ensure that my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment has his attention drawn to my hon. Friend's comment.

Mr. Bob Cryer: Could we have a statement at the earliest opportunity about whether any improvements will be made to this building during the recess to allow disabled people at least to rest somewhere and perhaps to have a meal as well, given that there are so few facilities for them at present?
No doubt the Leader of the House will have seen the story of Nicholas Killen, the little lad who has had his sight completely removed, of his bravery and the courage of his family. That little boy is now going to Temple Bank school for the partially sighted and blind in Bradford—

Madam Speaker: Order. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will come to the point about next week's business.

Mr. Cryer: Members of that school came round here 12 months ago, and I raised the question of facilities for disabled people then. There are absolutely none in this building, yet the Dining Rooms are booked by organisations where the fat cats can stuff themselves. I was


promised 12 months ago that something would be done. Nothing has been done. What will happen during the recess?

Mr. Newton: I am not sure that it is entirely appropriate to draw the particular comparison that the hon. Gentleman has drawn between facilities of one kind or another. It is certainly true that all of us would want further improvements in facilities here for disabled people. I am sure that the Accommodation and Administration Sub-Committee, now happily set up, will wish to pay heed to the hon. Gentleman's remarks.

Mr. John Wilkinson: May I remind my right hon. Friend that, at the end of the previous Parliament, his predecessor refused to have substantive resolutions tabled on the Jopling report on the sittings of the House? My right hon. Friend is following that sorry precedent even though, at the end of the previous Parliament, there were inevitably more senior parliamentarians than now. Could my right hon. Friend use the period after Monday's debate, before the recess, to table substantive resolutions drawing on the conclusions of that debate, so that we can implement them, hopefully in the first week back or very soon thereafter?

Mr. Newton: I am not sure that it would be practicable to table resolutions during the recess, but I shall tell the House on Monday that it is very much my hope that during the recess we shall make progress in precisely the way my hon. Friend wants so that we can take substantive decisions at an early stage after we return.

Mr. Max Madden: I again draw the attention of the Leader of the House to early-day motion 113.
[That this House contrasts the willingness of the British Ambassador to America to meet an American citizen, settled in the USA, to discuss why he was refused permission to visit the United Kingdom with the unwillingness of the British High Commissioner to Pakistan to make enquiries about a Pakistan citizen, settled in the United Kingdom for the last 18 years, who has been imprisoned in Pakistan for more than a year; again urges the Parliamentary Under Secretary of State at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the honourable Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale, to instruct British officials at our post in Islamabad to contact Pakistani authorities to obtain full information about Chazanfer Ali, a constituent of the honourable Member for Bradford West who first asked the Foreign and Commonwealth Office for information on Mr Ali's case on 25th March; understands Mr Ali's wife and children, living in Bradford, are desperately worried about Mr Ali, who they have not seen for the past 22 months; and believes Mrs Ali and her family are entitled to expect the Foreign and Commonwealth Office to obtain full information about Mr Ali's circumstances, especially news as to then he is to be released from prison and allowed to return to his home and family in Bradford.]
It concerns my constituent, Mr. Chazanfer Ali, who is in prison in Pakistan, who next Wednesday will lose his automatic right to return to this country and who on Thursday will be making his first court appearance.
Does the right hon. Gentleman share my concern that, despite requests for information about Mr. Ali that I have

made in the last three months to the Foreign Office, to the Pakistan High Commission, to the Prime Ministers of Britain and Pakistan and even to you, Madam Speaker, not a single crumb of official information has been passed to me about my constituent? Will the right hon. Gentleman tell the Prime Minister that I am grateful for his letter of this week, that I am determined to ask for information about my constituent, and that I am equally determined that he does not become a forgotten man, separated from his wife and five children in my constituency?

Mr. Newton: I understand that there has been considerable correspondence between the hon. Gentleman and Ministers and that the principal difficulty is that Mr. Ali is a Pakistani national. As my hon. Friend the Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale (Mr. Lennox-Boyd) told the hon. Gentleman in a letter of 8 May, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office has no standing to intervene in the case of a Pakistani national detained in Pakistan.

Sir Nicholas Fairbairn: May we have a foreign affairs debate on the question of the decorum of those who represent us abroad? If, by losing his seat, the new Governor of Hong Kong obtains his position, is it appropriate that everybody who greets him should dress properly in uniform while he discards his uniform and dresses like Harry Lime?

Mr. Newton: I am not sure that I would wish—indeed, I am sure I would not wish—to be associated with that description of my right hon. Friend, a former Member of the House, now the Governor of Hong Kong. But, even from this distance, I hope to find some way of drawing his attention to what my hon. and learned Friend said.

Mr. Jack Thompson: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the deep concern that has been expressed by hon. Members in all parts of the House about the environmental problems that arise from opencast coal operations? Is he further aware that, more than two years ago, we raised with the Department of the Environment the issue of what are called the mineral planning guidance notes, and were promised that the environmental issues would be looked into and consultations held? Will the right hon. Gentleman ask the Secretary of State for the Environment to make a statement next week on the results of those consultations and the changes that will be made to the MPG notes?

Mr. Newton: I shall, in the ordinary way, pass on the hon. Gentleman's request.

Mr. John Home Robertson: I refer the Leader of the House to the motion on the membership of Select Committees and, in particular, draw his attention to the fact that his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Perth and Kinross (Sir N. Fairbairn) has been nominated to serve not only on the Scottish Select Committee but also on the Select Committee on Defence. Is he totally confident of his hon. and learned Friend's ability to apply his notable talents to two Select Committees at once—

Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Member must ask a question about next week's business; he must not make debating points. What is his question about next week's business?

Mr. Home Robertson: I was asking—

Madam Speaker: Order. I heard the preamble. I now need to hear the question.

Mr. Home Robertson: The question is whether it would be appropriate to debate a motion in those terms next week.

Mr. Newton: My task as Leader of the House was, first, to table a motion enabling the Select Committees to be set up, which we have successfully done, and then to table a motion to provide time for a motion to be debated to provide the complement of the Select Committees. Happily, the content of that motion is a matter for the Committee of Selection, and I direct the hon. Gentleman in that direction.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: Now that the Minister of Agriculture has decided to have a meeting with Bolsover council and other groups next Wednesday on the subject of dioxin, may we have an assurance that a statement will be made by that Minister before or after the meeting, if he still feels up to it?

Mr. Newton: It seems highly unlikely that my right hon. Friend will be able to attend a meeting of the sort outlined by the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) without making a statement of some sort.

Mr. Derek Enright: The Home Secretary this week confided to The Guardian that he intended to reconstitute police committees in the same way as he had reconstituted health authorities. Will the Leader of the House arrange for his right hon. and learned Friend to come to the House next week to explain on what principles he will reconstitute the police committees? Are there not sufficient estate agents any more?

Mr. Newton: Perhaps I should make it clear, in case there was any misunderstanding on the part of the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) over my previous answer to him, that I was saying that, if my right hon. Friend the Minister has a meeting of the sort to which the hon. Gentleman referred, he will say something in the course of that meeting.
I shall bring to the attention of my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary the issue raised by the hon. Member for Hemsworth (Mr. Enright).

Mr. George Foulkes: Will the Leader of the House ask the Secretary of

State for Defence to make a statement next week about the report published today by the marine accident investiga-tion branch of the Department of Trade and Industry into the sinking of the Antares? In particular, will he state whether or not the Ministry of Defence and the Royal Navy accept the eight recommendations included in that report? It is absolutely essential that those recommenda-tions are accepted if we are to ensure that the tragedy of the sinking of the Antares is not repeated, in the Clyde or elsewhere.

Mr. Newton: I will bring that request to the attention of my right hon. and learned Friend.

Mr. Peter Hain: Will the Leader of the House find time next week for a statement on the Post Office? The President of the Board of Trade recently authorised the dropping of the Royal Mail prefix from the Post Office's Parcel Force. Is it not outrageous that that clear step towards privatisation was not even reported to the House, let alone debated properly?

Mr. Newton: The hon. Gentleman is right to record the fact that that change of name has taken place. It reflects the fact that Royal Mail and Parcel Force are significantly different enterprises.

Mr. Jimmy Boyce: Can I urge the Leader of the House to set aside time before the onset of winter and a return of the scandalous deaths through hypothermia to debate cold weather payments at the earliest possible opportunity?

Mr. Newton: As I well know from my role in a previous capacity, significant improvements were made in the cold weather payments system before last winter. My experience and view is that the new arrangements worked extremely well last winter, and a large amount of money —I think about £23 million—was paid out under them.

Adjournment of the House

Madam Speaker: I must remind hon. Members that, on the Motion for the Adjournment of the House on Thursday 16 July, up to nine hon. Members may raise with Ministers subjects of their own choice. Applications should reach my Office by 10 pm on Monday next. A ballot will be held on Tuesday morning and the results will be known as soon as posssible thereafter.

Adjournment (Summer)

Motion made and Question proposed,

That this House, at its rising on Thursday 16th July, do adjourn until Monday 19th October.—[Mr. Nicholas Baker.]

Madam Speaker: I have selected the amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer).

Sir Anthony Grant: I shall speak briefly on a subject which is of great importance. Before the House adjourns for the long recess, I want to refer to the serious problem of car crime in our community. Everyone is deeply concerned about the increase of crime, about which we have heard all too frequently. The figures show that the rise is almost entirely caused by the wholly unacceptable increase in crimes involving motor cars. In that respect we compare unfavourably with European and many other countries. It is a disgraceful stain on our reputation.
I should like to declare an interest in the matter. I have the honour to be the president of the Guild of Experienced Motorists, which represents about 70,000 motorists who are greatly concerned about road safety and have made many useful contributions. Car crime affects all parts of the country. It is especially worrying in my area of Cambridgeshire, where the level of general crime compares reasonably favourably with other parts of the country—but not in respect of crimes involving cars.
Not only does car crime affect the convenience and way of life of us all: it also leads to appalling incidents of what people foolishly call joyriding. I call it misery riding, because it leads to death and appalling maiming. The substantial increase in general crime is often facilitated by the use of motor vehicles which are used for burglary, attacking retail stores and bashing into premises and stealing from them.
The Government and responsible bodies should take every step to curb this menace in society. Motor manufacturers and insurers should accept responsibility. My right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary, and certainly his predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley (Mr. Baker), met the motor manufacturers and endeavoured to persuade them of their responsibilities. I am not at all certain how successful they were. I do not necessarily expect the Leader of the House to tell me about that, but perhaps he would inquire of the Home Secretary.
My impression is that motor manufacturers are not over-keen to do anything other than making cars that will sell. They had to be persuaded by legislation to install safety belts, and other safety features in motor vehicles have emerged only because of Government action. I sometimes maintain that if it were not for the law, motor manufacturers would not bother to fit brakes. We must take a firm line with the manufacturers. It is essential for all new vehicles to be fitted with an alarm system or, better still, an immobilising system, because the only way to reduce car crime is to have vehicles properly immobilised.
I drew the Home Secretary's attention to advertise-ments for devices which could cancel car security systems. I wrote drawing his attention to devices called car grabbers. The Guild of Experienced Motorists and others have said that the device should be outlawed immediately. Apparently the grabbers can be used to open any vehicle

with impunity, even when a security device is used. The manufacturers of the device say that it is to be used only by car recovery people, whatever that means.
In reply to my letter, the Minister of State, Home Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack), said that he appreciated concern about the matter but, speaking for the Home Office, he said:
We do not…have any evidence that alarm deactivators arc in fact commercially available in this country".
I alert him to the fact that they are available. I shall not mention the name of the firm, because I do not want to give it any publicity, but there is a firm in London which is producing leaflets about devices which can overcome any security system. They are called interceptors.
The publicity states:
As more and more vehicles are … fitted with remote control alarm systems, recovery is often difficult".
The interceptor can intercept any system. The splendid advertising also states that the device
has the outstanding ability to disable any remote control alarm system. Specially designed to assist in the recovery of vehicles … simply prevents any remote control alarm system٭ from being armed during the recovery of the vehicle.
After the asterisk, it is stated that the device is "DTI approved", which means that the Government know about the device and appear to have approved it. It strikes me that there is a serious lack of liaison between the Home Office and the Department of Trade and Industry.
The publicity warns:
It is a criminal offence to use this device for vehicle theft.
Ooh-er—thank you very much. I am sure that all potential burglars and car criminals will immediately desist when they have seen that notice.
The Home Secretary has been rather naive, and I ask him and my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House to put a bomb under the Home Office and try to get the problem sorted out. It is absolutely disgraceful that we are wringing our hands and saying how appalling it is that vehicles are stolen and used for serious crimes and that people are maimed, injured and killed, yet we do not seem to take the slightest interest in the highly skilled technological devices available to criminals—which are approved by the DTI, if you please. I ask my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House to consider the problem seriously—it is not a joke but a subject of immense importance.
Next door to me is the county of Bedfordshire, which has one of the best records for containing crime. As I represent a Cambridgeshire constituency, it sticks in the gullet to praise Bedfordshire, but Bedfordshire has been so successful because the police there took the problem of car crime very seriously.
I shall now sit down because many other hon. Members wish to participate in this short debate, but I ask my right hon. Friend and his ministerial colleagues to consider the issue seriously.

Mr. Alfred Morris: This is the earliest summer Adjournment I can remember. It may well be the earliest that any present Member of the House can recall. Everyone knows the reason: in the last few weeks, Government business has collapsed in the shambles over the Maastricht Bill. Yet many important matters merit urgent consideration and at least an oral ministerial statement before the House goes into recess.
The first of the two matters I want briefly to raise is one to which it would be very appropriate for the Leader of the House to respond since, for much of the past 13 years, he has had some responsibility for social security, latterly as Secretary of State.
He will know from our debates last year that the Opposition viewed with considerable scepticism some of the Government's claims about the disability living allowance and the disability working allowance. We felt strongly that false hopes of new help were being raised among people who would not qualify for a single penny piece from the allowances, particularly large numbers of elderly disabled people, and that in consequence there would be not only widespread and bitter disappointment but very considerable delays in processing the applications of entitled claimants.
That is exactly what has happened. In fact, protests from disabled constituents speak of the collapse of the whole benefits apparatus since the turn of the year. They are complaints from people who know only too well that, whereas average earnings have increased by over 20 per cent. since 1979, disability benefits have risen by only 1 per cent.
After the election I had complaints from the Terrence Higgins Trust that applications for attendance allowance for the terminally ill were being delayed by two months or more. What use is that? The right hon. Member for Braintree (Mr. Newton), who is now Leader of the House, took credit for introducing the special rules, but who takes the blame for the present chaos?
The Benefits Agency told me by letter that targets for delivering attendance allowance have not been met even, in many cases, to people in the final weeks of life. Failure to deliver benefits to the terminally ill must surely be a deeply serious matter. What good is financial help that comes posthumously? Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us how many cases are still outstanding and how long applicants can expect it to take to process their claims?
On 12 May, in reply to a parliamentary question, I received a letter from Mr. Bichard, the chief executive of the Benefits Agency, giving details of the increase in claims. He told me that due to
the extraordinarily high but rewarding level of interest that has been shown in the benefits, prompted by a major publicity campaign and the surge of claims that has resulted, we naturally faced early problems.
He added that it was not, therefore, surprising that the agency had been unable to meet the targets set for delivery of the attendance allowance. Rewarding to whom? It was not rewarding to disabled people, who now complain of trying over 20 times a day to phone the agency, without even being able to make contact.
I have been informed by the Terrence Higgins Trust —this was before raising the issue in the House—that the attendance allowance unit had been drained of staff and, in particular, of adjudication officers. This was glossed over in the letter to me, but in one to my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, South (Mr. Griffiths) on 13 June Mr. Bichard was more explicit. He wrote:
The national publicity campaign has had a knock-on effect in generating new claims to attendance allowance, at a time when staff were being released for retraining on the new disability living allowance work.
He added:
I should explain that it was always expected that there would he a backlog of applications to deal with in the early months of operation as a result of the advertising campaign.

I do not blame Mr. Bichard or the agency for the shambles and nor, to my knowledge, does any other right hon. or hon. Member.
Ministers must take responsibility for what has happened. That the shambles has taken so long to come to light is due to the ease with which Ministers are now able to hide behind the Benefits Agency. When the right hon. Member for Braintree set it up, he promised that information to Members and the responsibility of Ministers to the House would in no way diminish. Yet almost all the facts are hidden in the Library and parliamentary questions are answered by the standard rubric. It is hard at times fully to understand the system. I still occasionally receive substantive replies from the right hon. Member for Chelsea (Mr. Scott), the Minister for Social Security and Disabled People. As on the last occasion he had to apologise for giving me the wrong figures, I suspect that this courtesy may now cease entirely.
To test the availability of information to Members, I asked the Library to supply me with copies of all the replies from the Benefits Agency since the election. I was told:
Unfortunately, owing to the large number of letters concerned, the Library is unable to supply photocopies of all the letters.
I was sent the latest 15, of which seven concerned delays in the administration of the attendance allowance and the disability living allowance. I have no quarrel with the Library, but in previous years all the information would have been in Hansard. It was the right hon. Member for Braintree who changed the system, making it difficult for Members of Parliament, and almost impossible for outside agencies, to obtain data that previously had always been readily available to them.
Apart from two exchanges at Question Time, there have been no opportunities to call Ministers to account. Unquestionably, we should have the opportunity to do so before the summer recess. We should also be told before the debate concludes whether the Benefits Agency's responses to parliamentary questions are covered by parliamentary privilege. That is a deeply important question. At the same time, perhaps the right hon. Gentleman would tell us how many people have now qualified for the disability working allowance. As he knows, the Minister for Social Security and Disabled People has disclosed that only 588 claimants were awarded disability working allowance up to 8 May. That is only 6·5 per cent. of the 9,107 who applied. I understand that, in all, there were no fewer than 295,000 inquiries about the allowance.
Another matter that needs clarification before the House rises is the Government's attitude to civil rights for people with disabilities. In a parliamentary reply on 29 June, the Prime Minister said:
The Government's view was stated principally on 31 January during Second Reading of the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill by my right hon. Friend the Minister for Social Security and Disabled People".—[Official Report, 29 June 1992; Vol. 210, c. 375.]
The clearest statement by the Minister in that Second Reading debate was when he said:
I remain unrepentantly and benevolently neutral in my attitude".—[Official Report, 31 January 1992; Vol. 202, c. 1252.]
About that, one can only echo the Biblical words,
He that is not with me is against me.
Perhaps the true position was stated by the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Employment at oral


questions on 10 March. In straight conflict with what had been said by the Minister for Social Security and Disabled People on 31 January, the hon. Gentleman said:
I do not believe, and the Government do not believe, that such a legislative approach is the right way to deal with the problem."—[Official Report, 10 March 1992; Vol. 205, c. 735.]
For further obfuscation of the Government's position, I turn to Lord Henley. On 15 June, during the debate on the Bill in another place—following its introduction by my noble Friend Baroness Lockwood—Lord Henley inter-vened in a speech by my noble Friend Lord Ennals and said:
 I did not oppose the Bill. I said that I could not offer the Government's support. There is a considerable difference between the two concepts."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 15 June 1992; Vol. 583, c. 86.]
Perhaps the Leader of the House would explain the difference in practice and, at the same time, tell us how to reconcile the three ministerial versions of the Government's attitude to the Bill.
On 5 June, the Minister for Social Security and Disabled People sent me an extraordinary letter claiming that my proposed disablement commission
would conflict with the work of advisory and enforcement bodies which already exist to oversee the implementation of legislation.
What are those bodies? In a reply on 26 June, he revealed —in a bizarre attempt to explain his previous letter—that those bodies included the Social Security Advisory Committee and the Sports Council.
Can the right hon. Gentleman think of one way in which the work of those admirable bodies could be impeded to any extent by my Bill—or, indeed, the work of the British Standards Institution or the War Pensions Committee? Clearly, the strain of being "benevolently neutral" is beginning to tell.
The Leader of the House was, as I have recalled, a Social Security Minister for many years. Understandably, at that time he had to uphold the departmental view, right or wrong. Now that he is Leader of the House, he has a responsibility to Members of Parliament as a whole, irrespective of where they sit in the House. Since becoming Leader of the House, he must have learnt, merely from reading the Order Paper day by day, that there is strong and increasing support, not just on both sides of the House but in every party, large and small, for the enactment of the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill. For example, he must have seen the range of support from all parties for early-day motion 330 tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood (Dr. Berry), which states:
That this House believes that anti-discrimination legislation is necessary to ensure equality of opportunity for people with disabilities; and calls for the early introduction of a Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill.
The support here for my Civil Rights Bill reflects closely the range of backing for it among the organisations of and for disabled people. They are utterly united in wanting the Bill enacted and nothing would give them more joy today than to hear from the right hon. Gentleman that the Government have now come down from the fence to help forward its enactment. I most strongly urge the right hon. Gentleman to do all that he can as Leader of the House to respond positively to their views before the recess. In so doing, he would be agreeing with colleagues in all parts of the House that this is not now a difference between right and left, but one between right and wrong.

Mr. Charles Hendry: I am most grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for this opportunity to make my maiden speech and, in advance of the summer recess, to raise matters of great concern to my constituents.
At the outset, however, I wish to pay a warm personal tribute to my predecessor, Christopher Hawkins, who served High Peak so well for the past nine years. He was a man of tremendous intelligence and many new and good ideas. Perhaps in a way that is less normal for a politician, he was much more interested in obtaining results than in obtaining publicity for them. He did an enormous amount for High Peak, which has earned him the great respect of people there and for which he will long be remembered. Fortunately, he is now enjoying much better health than when he decided to retire and I am delighted that his skills and talents will continue to be used as deputy chairman of the Black Country development corporation, continuing the good and important work of my noble Friend Baroness Denton.
In the few short weeks I have been in the House, I have already become extremely well aware of the immense affection also for Christopher Hawkins' predecessor, Spencer Le Marchant. None of us will ever forget that, in the early days of the broadcasting of proceedings of the House, it was Spencer's voice that told the world and a hushed and expectant nation the result of that important vote of confidence in 1979. It was those words which we now know spelt the end of socialism in Britain, which was so clearly confirmed by the results on 9 April this year. However, I must advise hon. Members not to expect from me the largesse of Spencer Le Marchant—obviously not in physical terms, nor also, for the sake of my bank manager, in terms of his legendary generosity.
I should like to express my thanks to two other people who, over the past couple of years, have given me a unique opportunity to see the workings of the House and Whitehall and to play an extremely small and minor part in the development of policy. They are my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House and John Moore, who I am delighted is now rejoining Parliament in another place, to whom I was special adviser. At the risk of embarrassing my right hon. Friend, I could not have hoped to work for two more honourable, decent. far-sighted and fair men. I rather suspect that I learnt far more from them than they ever might have done from me.
That was certainly a far cry from the days when I first came to work in the House 10 years ago as a humble researcher for my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) in one of his many previous incarnations in the House. I am delighted to see my hon. Friend in the Chamber today. He paid me the princely sum—or whatever his equivalent would be of a princely sum—of £10 a week. I must have been one of the first people to realise, despite many other signs to the contrary, that my hon. Friend was already an ardent supporter of Thatcherite housekeeping principles. At that time I also worked for Peter Fraser—now my right hon., noble and learned Friend the Lord Advocate—who paid me no money at all. Only in retrospect did I realise what sound judgment both must have had.
My first election campaign, in 1983, took place in Clackmannan. Contrary to the impression gained by some of my colleagues, I had not applied to stand at Clapham but, having stuttered, ended up 400 miles away in the


middle of Scotland! There I learned the importance of brevity. When I asked my agent why he had scheduled no public meetings for me, he said, "Well, Charles, it is better that people wonder why you do not speak than that they wonder why you do."
I want to draw attention to a number of issues relating to High Peak. Listening to the excellent maiden speeches by hon. Members on both sides of the House, I was slightly surprised to note how few of them had been there. If they had, they would have had to be satisfied with representing the second most beautiful constituency in the country.
High Peak is a constituency of unique and wonderful contrasts. It combines the rolling valleys of Hope Valley and the charming villages within it with the foreboding splendour and magnificence of Kinder Scout. It combines the majesty of Longden dale with the breathtaking beauty of the Derwent valley; and it incorporates towns such as Buxton—a magnificent Georgian town—with the industrial heritage of the manufacturing centres of New Mills and Glossop. It contains a variety of small towns such as Chapel-en-le-Frith, Whaley Bridge and Hayfield—delight-ful little places—and a host of small villages rejoicing in such names as Dove Holes, Sparrowpit and Wormhill. I have yet to find out why the birds in High Peak live underground while the worms apparently do not. Anyway, it is an area of tremendous contrasts, and it is a delight and a privilege to represent it.
High Peak, however, is not merely an area that people wish to visit; it is much more than that. In many ways, it provides the lungs—the breathing space—for Manchester and Sheffield, being less than a dozen miles from the centres of both those great cities. I simply do not believe that the people of a rural area such as High Peak can claim that the problems of those cities do not matter to them. We depend very much on them; many of my constituents work in them, and are making an important contribution to their revival.
High Peak contains problems as well as opportunities, and it is on those problems that I wish to comment. The first is the problem of access. In the past year, some 24 million people have visited the Peak district, which makes Blackpool seem like a minor resort. The road infrastructure that they have used has scarcely changed in the past 40 years, and we now experience tremendous problems of traffic clogging in places such as Glossop, and on the A628 to the north of that town. Those traffic problems urgently need relief: on weekday mornings the rush-hour traffic is as bad, as slow and as frustrating as it is in any city in the country. Towns such as Buxton also need a bypass if they are to enjoy the growth that they deserve. In places such as Dove Holes, a bypass could be built simply, cheaply and rapidly. I hope that the Government will consider the possibility of building roads in those areas.
Because High Peak is an area of such outstanding natural beauty, I hope that the Government will also pay particular attention to the environmental impact of those roads. The A6 badly needs relief as it is seriously clogged, but it would be a tragedy if that relief destroyed the environment that people wish to visit. I hope that the serious concern felt by people in New Mills will be taken into account.
I also wish to raise the general issue of conservation. Buxton is one of the brightest jewels in the shining crown of High Peak. It is a magnificent Georgian town, and we are fortunate enough to have one of the country's smallest

and most special opera houses. Owing to the diligence of those who run it, the opera house has one of the most successful records in the country: it manages to put on new productions that people actually want to see and, more important, it does so with a fraction of the subsidy given to other opera houses. Buxton's subsidy is 27p per seat; the average for similar theatres is more than £3. So, for less than 10 per cent. of the average, people are being looked after and have a tremendous asset.
Next week the international Buxton festival will open, which will bring people flooding into the town not only from the surrounding area but from all over the country and from overseas. Sadly, this year visitors will be shocked by the state of the magnificient Georgian crescent in the centre of the town. It is boarded up and derelict, posing an increasing danger to people passing through the town who visit it. I urge my right hon. Friend to contact his colleagues in Government to find out what can be done by bringing together people who could assist in the restoration of the crescent. I am encouraged by the way in which High Peak borough council, Derbyshire county council—it is rare for that council to be praised—and English Heritage are working constructively together to secure the future of the crescent. but I also urge the Government, through the Secretary of State for National Heritage, to do whatever they can to assist.
In spite of those few problems, we are fortunate to live in High Peak. I invite those who do not live there to come to the festival, or to see something else at the opera house. I consider myself the luckiest Member of the House, because I can be in Westminster during the week and in my constituency in the Peak district for the rest of the time. If some attention could be paid to the small matters that I have mentioned, High Peak would become an even more attractive place in which to live and work, and a more attractive place to visit.

Mr. Dennis Turner: I congratulate the hon. Member for High Peak (Mr. Hendry) on his interesting maiden speech, which gave us a graphic picture of his constituency. Those of us who know Derbyshire know how beautiful his constituency is. The important issues that he raised about the environment, infrastructure and conservation are all germane to many of our constituencies; they are important matters and should be brought to the attention of the Government. I congratulate the hon. Member on his speech and hope that we shall hear many more contributions from him. When he listed his hobbies and recreations, I was struck by the contrast between his—he talks of skiing and tennis—and mine, which are beer drinking and all card games. I also appreciated his earlier contribution to public welfare when he told us about all the charity work that he did for his colleagues both inside and outside the House in the years before he entered this place.
I am pleased to have the opportunity to take part in the debate and I shall make my points briefly as I am aware that many other hon. Members wish to speak. Earlier this week, we had an interesting and important debate on the recession. On Monday, particular mention was made of the continuing difficulties that we are experiencing in the west midlands. In my constituency in Wolverhampton there are continual job losses, company closures and bankruptcies. Unemployment is at a high level. In most


parts of my constituency and the rest of Wolverhampton, male unemployment is more than 20 per cent. That is a serious situation for many of my constituents, who are unable to make a contribution to our society and have no opportunity to live a decent life, because the standard of living on the dole is not, and should not be, acceptable to us.
A further blow to my community in Wolverhampton has been the recent hostile and unwelcome bid made by Kalon plc for the Manders paint works in Wolverhampton. We all understand that in the business world there are times when a merger or takeover is regarded as desirable and is accepted, when a company faces difficulties and needs assistance, but Manders is a company which has traded successfully for the past 200 years. It is the foremost company in Wolverhampton; it has first-rate industrial relations and a first-rate product, and we in Wolverhampton are all proud of it.
The hostile bid is a serious blow to the town, first, because of its effect on jobs. We may lose as many as 500 jobs in Wolverhampton and in a subsidiary company in Yorkshire which will be wiped out if the bid is successful. Furthermore, the company making the bid serves the own-brand paint market, and if it were successful it would control more than 70 per cent. of that market. A serious competition issue therefore arises. If the competition were taken out, the bidding company would be able to increase prices and act not in the interests of our economy or of consumers but against the public interest. Neither Manders and its workers nor our town accept that that bid is in any way helpful to the economy or to Wolverhampton.
The bid should be referred to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission. It is a classic case for the anti-competition rules. If it is not a classic case for reference to the MMC, that body and that method of dealing with such issues must be a complete waste of time, and the whole apparatus should be abandoned.
Having listened to my speech, will the Leader of the House be prepared at least to ask the President of the Board of Trade kindly to consider the matter? We are worried about the jobs, about lack of competition in that sector of the market, and about the future of a great company.
Manders was the first company to sign the 40-hour working week agreement with the trade unions back in 1927, and since then it has always operated a policy of good industrial relations. Manders has an excellent product; we in Wolverhampton are proud of the company and of its work force, and we need to keep it in our town. I therefore ask the Leader of the House kindly to refer the matter to the President of the Board of Trade so that justice can be done and we can continue to have that profitable and successful company in Wolverhampton.

Sir Fergus Montgomery: I join the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-East (Mr. Turner) in congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for High Peak (Mr. Hendry) on a confident and excellent maiden speech. I remember how nervous I was when I

made my own. I admire my hon. Friend for seeming not to have a care in the world, but no doubt a great deal of fluttering was going on inside.
I was grateful that my hon. Friend paid a particular tribute to Spencer Le Marchant, who was one of the most generous people ever to sit in the House. It was brave of my hon. Friend to reveal that he had worked for a pittance for one of my Scottish hon. Friends, and for nothing at all for my noble and learned Friend the Lord Advocate. When we debate the subject of people living on small incomes, no doubt my hon. Friend will be able to speak with experience. The people of High Peak made a good choice when they elected him as their Member of Parliament in April. I am sure that he will receive congratulations from every right hon. and hon. Member who heard his maiden speech.
Ticket touting is a serious problem, which must be tackled sooner rather than later. Touts operate in various forms—as private individuals, as organised groups on the streets outside theatres and sports venues and masquerading as ticket agents by operating from apparently authentic premises. The latter present a particular danger in the west end. They have the semblance of respectability. By displaying publicity material for various shows, they give the impression that they are genuine agencies, such as the Keith Prowse chain which collapsed a few years ago. The public are taken in because they believe that they are using a respectable business.
All too often, however, an unsuspecting tourist will find that he has paid well over the odds. Touting can mislead and defraud the public, who may pay an extortionate price that is way above a ticket's face value. It often transpires that the seats purchased have a restricted view, contrary to assurances given at the time of purchase. If one goes to a theatre box office, one will be told if the seats offered are located behind a pillar or at the back of the stalls. It is disgraceful to pay an agency a great deal of money for a ticket, only to find that one's view of the stage is obstructed.
It has also been known for people arriving at a theatre to collect their pre-paid tickets to discover that they are not available because the agency has gone out of business or has moved to unknown premises.
The Society of West End Theatre produced a dossier of cases. Two German tourists paid £75 each to see "The Phantom of the Opera", when the ticket's face value was £8·50. Two Norwegian tourists paid £50 for tickets for "Starlight Express", only to find that their seats offered a restricted view from the back row. A tourist from Essex paid an agency £54 for a ticket that had a face value of £7·50. Tennis fans have paid as much as £650 for finals day tickets having a face value of £36. Football supporters have paid £250 for FA cup final tickets with a face value of £35. I can only imagine that they had more money than sense to pay such prices. Such practices do a great deal to harm the British tourist industry and to deter tourists from patronising certain events.
Touts also enjoy substantial profits without making any contribution to the state in the form of income tax or value added tax.
In February, my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle (Mr. Leigh) made a widely reported speech at Brunel university in his capacity as Under-Secretary of State for Consumer Affairs and Small Firms. He announced plans to give consumers more protection and greater redress, including a proposal to


ensure that when agencies resell tickets for theatres and other public events, they disclose the location, face value and other relevant information to the prospective buyer. I shall be grateful if my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House will say when that commitment will be implemented.
Urgent action is needed if London is to avoid the description of ticket tout capital of the world. Of course we must acknowledge market principles, and I know that one of my hon. Friends is in favour of ticket touts. Everyone is entitled to his opinion—but the market mechanism is free and fair only if the buyer of goods or services has full knowledge of the proper market price and can be confident that the vendor is authorised to sell.
Why cannot the code of practice in the Consumer Protection Act 1987 be made statutory so that it becomes a definite offence to deface the face value of a ticket, and amended in such a way that it is legally clear and easier to enforce? Ticket agencies should also be licensed so that tickets can be bought only from authorised establish-ments. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment should have powers to make regulations allowing local authorities to license ticket sellers and third parties to sell tickets on closely controlled terms. All other sales to the public would become illegal. Licensing must be the ultimate long-term objective.
We can learn from the experience of another great theatre city—New York. There was a time when touting in that city was creating enormous problems, so the state legislature introduced laws forbidding it. New York ticket sellers are required to be licensed, submit a bond of $1,000, print the mark-up on the ticket, display their licence in a public place and keep a record of all their transactions. If such arrangements are possible in New York, why are they not in London and other parts of the United Kingdom?
Most right hon. and hon. Members regard touting as morally reprehensible. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education, when Minister of State, Home Office, described the practice as obnoxious. I would never buy from a ticket tout. Some years ago, Frank Sinatra, Sammy Davis Jnr. and Liza Minnelli starred at a concert in the Royal Albert hall, for which tickets were at a premium. My wife and I very much wanted to attend the last night, but could not obtain tickets anywhere. Someone suggested that I should stand outside the hall with cash in my pocket, because the chances were that just as the show was due to start, the touts would sharply reduce their asking prices. I would rather that they burnt their fingers by being left with unsold tickets and making a loss on their transactions.
Tourism is important to our economy, and tourists are a particular target for the touts. A few years ago, Westminster city council—which covers most of the west end theatres—undertook an investigation that confirmed that foreign visitors were the most likely to be overcharged. The report stated:
This has important implications for tourism. Why should tourists pay more for the same product?
I hope that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House will inform the Department of Trade and Industry's consumer affairs division that many people, including myself, are impatient for the pledge that was given on 20 February by my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle to be implemented. I hope that an announcement will be made before the summer recess.

Mr. Don Foster: I congratulate the hon. Member for High Peak (Mr. Hendry) on what I, too, thought was an excellent maiden speech. However, he suggested that many hon. Members had not visited High Peak. My parents lived and worked in his constituency for many years and I had the opportunity to visit it on many occasions. While I accept the way in which he extolled the beauty of his constituency, I am not prepared to relegate my constituency to second place behind his.
I want to raise an issue that is very important for people in my constituency and for those in the constituencies of many other hon. Members. It relates to a group of people who, if we are not careful, may become the forgotten victims of the Maxwell scandal. I gave the Leader of the House warning that I was going to raise the issue and I hope that I will, therefore, hear positive news when the right hon. Gentleman replies to the debate.
Hon. Members will be aware that a few weeks ago the Secretary of State for Social Security announced that he was making available a sum of £2·5 million
to provide temporary, emergency funding to help Maxwell schemes which are unable to maintain pension payments over the next few months."—[Official Report, 8 June 1992; Vol. 209, c. 20.]
That announcement was warmly welcomed by hon. Members on both sides of the House and many people sighed with relief. For many Maxwell pensioners who already receive a pension, it provided some certainty that those pensions would continue for at least the next few months.
However, there remains a great deal of uncertainty for many other people affected by the Maxwell scandal. I particularly want to draw those people to the attention of the House and hope that before we go into recess we shall be able to resolve their anxieties and uncertainties.
As hon. Members will be aware, the winding-up arrangements of the Maxwell pension schemes mean that people who reach pensionable age after February of this year are still treated as deferred pensioners. In many cases, they will not receive a pension through a Maxwell pension scheme unless the Secretary of State for Social Security and his newly established Maxwell pension unit are prepared to arrange for that to happen.
I have spoken to the Maxwell pension unit and I am grateful for its help. However, it told me that, to date, no decision has been taken on whether that group of deferred pensioners will receive assistance from the £2·5 million fund. It is important that we are told, as a matter of urgency, whether they will be helped in that way.
Another group of victims of the Maxwell pension scandal have been affected in a more complicated way. They are victims of the Maxwell scandal, but they are not currently members of a Maxwell pension scheme. To illustrate the complexity and importance of the situation, I want to refer to a group of my constituents.
In the mid-1980s, Robert Maxwell acquired the Hollis Engineering Group of companies, which included Stothert and Pitt in my constituency and Floform in the constituency of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile). The companies that formed the Hollis Engineering Group each had their own, well-funded pension schemes. However, when Robert Maxwell took over the companies, they were brought together in a single, new pension scheme now known as AGB.
Subsequently, as a result of a management buy-out, yet another pension scheme—the Victoria Works pension scheme—was established. It was independent of AGB—the Maxwell scheme. An agreement was reached that a sum of about £4 million of transfer-valued assets would be transferred to the Victoria Works scheme. However, only about £1·3 million was transferred, leaving a shortfall of more than £2 million in the new Victoria Works scheme.
At that point, the Maxwell saga blew up. The scandal broke and we discovered that AGB was unable to transfer the remaining amount into the Victoria Works pension scheme. Because of the fraud, AGB cannot hand over money owed to the Victoria Works scheme which affects 70 of my constituents. As the scheme has no other source of funds, it will very shortly be insolvent.
In short, that means that 70 of my constituents belong to a pension scheme which, because of the Maxwell fraud, will become insolvent. They will stop receiving their pensions very soon. In a few months' time, more of the 250 deferred pensioners will not receive pensions. At the moment, they are not part of a Maxwell pension scheme. Therefore, they do not appear to fall within the remit of the £2·5 million fund. Can that £2·5 million emergency fund be extended to the Victoria Works pension scheme?
George Busby is 67 years old and he is one of those affected in my constituency. He paid into a pension scheme for 30 years and retired at the end of 1989. He told me today that he is now seriously considering selling his home and that, with the threat of the loss of pension hanging over him, he is unable to make plans for a holiday. He said:
The strain of not knowing whether you're going to be able to provide for your wife and dependants is intolerable. All the years of planning for retirement are destroyed.
Given that the Leader of the House has had notice of the matter, I hope that he will be able to assure me that active consideration is being given to the possibility of money from the £2·5 million fund being transferred to the Victoria Works pension scheme, which is not the only scheme affected. There are nine other schemes, with asset values close to £10 million, that still have not been transferred from AGB, and their pensioners are in a similar position. I understand that some other Maxwell pension schemes may also face similar problems.
The issue is complex and it will require a great deal of sorting out. However, I hope that that can be achieved very quickly because many people are affected.

Mr. David Willetts: I am most grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for allowing me to catch your eye and so make my maiden speech. I follow the conspicuous and eloquent maiden speech of my hon. Friend the Member for High Peak (Mr. Hendry). Mine is very much a valley after his great heights.
I have the honour of succeeding Sir Ian Lloyd, who was the Member for Havant for 25 years. He was a most assiduous and well-respected constituency Member and he was ably assisted by his wife Frances who made a particular contribution to the local work of the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children.
Ian was a most distinguished parliamentarian. He was never cramped by day-to-day political argument but always took the long view. In his maiden speech in 1965,

he reminded the House of an ancestor of his who successfully introduced a measure in 1693 to denationalise the mines—one of the preconditions for our industrial revolution. It is particularly apt, therefore, that we will be able to celebrate the 300th anniversary of that measure by setting the mines free once more.
Perhaps Ian's influence was strongest in science and technology. It is one of those ironies of political life that, within a few months of his taking his retirement, two measures for which he fought long and hard have finally been implemented. On 1 May, we saw created the Office of Science and Technology, falling within the responsibilities of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. Ian had also fought for the creation of the Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology. For a while, it was financed entirely through private spon-sorship, but again, only a few weeks ago, the House of Commons Commission finally voted public funds to support that office. I hope that both measures can be regarded as our tribute to Sir Ian Lloyd on his retirement.
Before the House adjourns, I should like to raise several matters that are of concern to my constituents. Havant stands literally at a crossroads and has done so since Roman times. It stands where the A3 from Portsmouth to London intersects the A27 coastal road. A new A27 was recently constructed. It was intended to bring relief to the area, but sadly it has blighted the lives of many people in Warblington and Emsworth. Its deeply ridged concrete surface produces the notorious A27 roar. When the road was opened, the Department of Transport described the surface as "experimental". It is an experiment which has failed. We in Havant are fighting a battle for bitumen. My hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Mr. Nelson) and I look forward to meeting our hon. Friend the Minister for Roads and Traffic next week, when we will argue forcefully for resurfacing the A27.
Hon. Members have often referred in their maiden speeches to the sense of community in their constituencies. Havant has its sense of community, too—but perhaps that sounds a trifle worthy or even dull. I assure the House that it is not like that at all. The other week, I had the honour of taking part in the Havant annual town parade, and was preceded by giant Sooty and Sweep puppets, an array of teenage mutant ninja turtles and the south coast's finest Norman Wisdom impersonator. It was a most enjoyable event.
The borough of Havant comprises several distinct communities, and few issues arouse as much emotion as proposals to build on the remaining green land that survives between them. The last thing that we want Havant to become is one long anonymous urban agglomeration. Each part of the constituency, from Hartplain to Emsworth, values its own identity. Waterlooville, for example, is the place where British soldiers camped before embarking to defeat the forces of Napoleonic centralism at Waterloo, that famous battlefield 100 miles south-east of Maastricht. Napoleon, of course, had a notoriously limited grasp of the important idea of subsidiarity—it extended only as far as making his brother King of Spain.
Emsworth used to be famous for its oysters, until a most unfortunate incident at a banquet nearly 100 years ago, when civil dignitaries, local grandees and councillors became extremely ill on eating Emsworth oysters, and I am afraid that some died. I am sure that hon. Members will agree that that is no way to treat local councillors.
There are also the people of Hayling Island, who have taken the sensible precaution of preserving their distinct identity by arranging to be an island. It has rich agricultural land and a very fine beach—one of the 16 in the country to have been awarded the coveted blue flag. It was a Hayling islander who first had the idea of putting a mast on a surfboard, and thus windsurfing was created. I am pleased to say that Hayling remains one of the world centres for that sport.
The names of some parts of my constituency may ring a faint bell with hon. Members who have read their P. G. Wodehouse—Lord Emsworth, Lady Warblington, even the Duchess of Havant. P. G. Wodehouse lived in the area for a time, and parts of it are now immortalised as the titles of upper-class eccentrics in his novels. But my constituents are very far from being characters in a P. G. Wodehouse novel, because, above all, what we do in Havant is make things. We have a concentration of world-class manufacturing firms. We are therefore particularly concerned about the state of the economy.
There is no disguising the recession. Our firms in Havant are going through a difficult time, just like many firms around the country. It is no good gloating over the recession and taking a snapshot of the economy when it is at the bottom of an economic cycle. Instead, we have to compare the full economic cycle—the upswing and the downswing—with the previous economic cycle. That way, we can take a step back and measure the changes in the underlying performance of the economy. We find that a lot has changed for the better in the 1980s. During the full cycle from 1981 until now, the British economy has had an average growth rate of more than 2 per cent. a year. That compares with the previous economic cycle from 1975 until 1981, when we had an average growth rate of a little more than 1 per cent. per year. It is a measure of the conspicuous improvement in the underlying performance of our industry, and I see in Havant the practical evidence that lies behind those statistics.
IBM has a large factory in Havant. Its output has trebled in the past few years. Only the other week, an IBM manager was telling me how his Havant plant could compete with its rival IBM plant in Germany and outperform IBM's Japanese point in both quality and cost control. I asked him how that was achieved and he said that it was because of
our more flexible employment legislation.
We are now beginning to gain back from the far east the technological lead in computer disc drives which was lost 10 or 20 years ago.
The other day, another Havant firm was floated on the stock exchange—Kenwood. It was created by Mr. Ken Wood, although he was not, as far as I know, a chef. That firm had languished in a large conglomerate, but, after a management buy-out a few years ago, its performance has been transformed. Kenwood's sales have been booming and it is now beating competition from France and Germany. There are many other such firms, such as De la Rue systems, Apollo fire detectors and Colt ventilation systems. They are all at the sharp end of British industry and they are exporting much of their output. The dynamism of such firms lies behind the transformation of our trade performance, with our share of world trade increasing in the past three years, having stablished during the 1980s, after years—decades—of decline.
Several of our exporters in Havant have criticised the performance of the Dutch firm that has taken over some

of the short-term insurance responsibilities of the Export Credits Guarantee Department. I have written to my hon. Friend the Minister for Trade about their concerns. Other firms still feel that they do not yet have completely open access to the European market and that we in Britain are more serious about free trade than some other member states of the EC. I therefore welcome the fact that the Government have made completion of the internal market one of their priorities for the United Kingdom's presidency of the European Community.
Havant is a young constituency, so we are very interested in the standards of our schools. Many were built during the 1960s and, sadly, are in need of repair or even complete rebuilding. We are worried that educational planners are so preoccupied with the decline in the number of secondary school pupils that they have lost sight of the baby boom and the increase in the number of very young children. We now have nearly 4 million under-fives, compared with a little more than 3 million in the early 1980s.
In 1998 there will be about 15 per cent. more primary school pupils than in 1984. Therefore, we need to be wary of closing infant and junior schools precisely when we can see an increase in the number of young infants who will soon join them. I shall fight to ensure that changes to our schools proposed by Hampshire county council take account of these trends and the clear wishes of parents and teachers.
Some people ask me why my constituency, which contains Leigh Park, one of the largest council estates in Britain, returns such a substantial Conservative majority. That is the old snobbish assumption that Conservatism is just for the upper crust. One of the best aspects of the count in Havant on 9 April was when the ballot boxes from Leigh Park were opened and we saw the voting papers pouring out, so many with a cross for the Conservatives. It was evidence that the modern Conservative party understands the aspirations of the people on the council estates as well the people on the Bovis estates.
They are people who have bought their council house thanks to Conservative policies. They are people who work in private firms and know that the success of those firms, their jobs and their prosperity depend on a healthy private sector. They are people who care about standards in their schools. They are people who try to bring up their children decently and have no truck with the sociological defences of the criminal. They are people who want more choice in health and education, who want to keep a greater share of their pay packets to spend in the way that they know best. The modern Conservative party speaks for them. I am proud to represent them.

Mr. Derek Fatchett: It is with pleasure that I congratulate the hon. Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts) on his maiden speech. He showed a great deal of self-confidence and a clear and intimate knowledge of his constituency. I am sure that his constituents will realise from what he said that he is keen to represent them. I am sure that they recognise that his voice will be heard on many occasions on their behalf in the House.
I listened to the hon. Gentleman's views on education with some interest. I also noted his comments about the state of the British economy. I know that it is a tradition


of the House that maiden speeches should not be controversial, so I wait for further comments from the hon. Gentleman on the state of the British economy. I wonder whether, in view of one of his previous incarnations and his close relationship with a new Member of the other place, he has read in tonight's Evening Standard the criticisms of the state of the British economy. But perhaps that debate is better left for a later occasion.
I also heard with interest and welcomed the comments that the hon. Gentleman made about his predecessor, Sir Ian Lloyd, who was well known and respected in the House. As the hon. Gentleman said, he was particularly respected for his work on science. It is appropriate that the issue that I wish to raise relates to science. It is one in which Sir Ian Lloyd would be particularly interested.
I wish to raise the case of Dr. Chris Chapman, who is faced with the sack from Leeds general infirmary. Dr. Chapman is, in the new journalistic jargon, a whistleblow-er. He is a man who has told the truth. In the new world of the national health service, he is about to lose his job because he has courage, integrity and a willingness to tell the truth. He will lose his job on the day before his 50th birthday, so he will not receive the enhanced pension to which he would be entitled 24 hours later.
So keen was the senior managment of Leeds general infirmary trust to ensure that Dr. Chapman lost his job on the last day of his 50th year that the notice of his dismissal was sent by a courier on a motorbike. There was no personal notice for Dr. Chapman, but simply a motorbike to ensure that the enhanced pension was lost.
Dr. Chapman has served our national health service for more than 20 years. He has given his life to the national health service; he has given considerably more years than those who wish to get rid of him; he has made a significant scientific contribution; he is respected widely as a scientist; he has saved the national health service an estimated millions of pounds.
According to one of Dr. Chapman's colleagues quoted in one of our national newspapers, Dr. Chapman is
probably the most competent scientist in the department, a good innovator and has an excellent relationship with his staff.
One would think that those were good attributes which would allow someone to maintain his job. In the new national health service and the new Leeds general infirmary trust, that seems to be a condemnation.
Dr. Chapman is a man of service who has made a scientific contribution and, above all else, he is a man of integrity. He has played the game by the internal rules; he has never rushed to the papers; he has never uttered a word to the newspapers, television or radio. At all times he has raised issues internally within the national health service.
On three occasions, in 1987, 1989 and 1991, Dr. Chapman raised issues of substantial importance. Now we are told that he is to lose his job. The reason given is that he is redundant. I put it to the House that there are 200 people in the department and only one person is to be made redundant. The man to be made redundant is the one described by one of his senior colleagues as the best scientist in the department. Some of us have had experience of industrial relations in private industry. I have never come across a departmental reorganisation involving 200 people which has led to the sacking of only one person. It is a unique experience.
Who are the people who have made the judgment that Dr. Chapman, this able scientist, is no longer needed at Leeds general infirmary? Let me name them. They are Stuart Ingham, the chief executive, on £90,000 a year. He was charged by the statutory auditors in 1987 to have a more direct responsibility for what has happened in the department in which Dr. Chapman works. Ingham has failed to fulfil that responsibility. He survives, Chapman is sacked.
Professor John Whicher has been involved all the way through as head of department. He failed to fulfil his responsibility. Not only does he survive, he has been promoted. Dr. Ian Barnes was also involved in the decision about Chapman's redundancy. He survives despite his involvement, to which I shall refer later.
On the first of the three occasions, in 1987, Dr. Chapman raised issues about money and financial irregularities in Leeds general infirmary. Those allegations were proved correct by the statutory auditors, who said that various people—Ingham, Barnes and Whicher—had a managerial responsibility to ensure that there was no repeat of the events in that department. Yet we now know that they did not fulfil their responsibility and further transgressions took place. Dr. Chapman made two further allegations, both of which have sadly proved correct.
The first allegation involved Dr. Barnes, the head of the immediate unit in which Dr. Chapman works. Dr. Ian Barnes has worked for the Leeds general infirmary since 1987. He has had a consultancy contract with a Belgian firm called Medgenix. That firm, that contract and that consultancy have all operated against the NHS circular HS62/21 which, as hon. Members on both sides of the House will know, asks that consultancy arrangements between NHS staff and outside organisations should be clear and known and that the details of the financial transactions should be available. In Dr. Barnes's case, that simply does not seem to have happened. The substance of the evidence is that Dr. Ian Barnes was employed by the national health service and was also engaged as a consultant for the biochemical supply firm, Medgenix. That engagement has never been properly declared by Dr. Barnes and, in contravention of NHS procedures, he received payments from that firm.
Dr. Chapman made that allegation and it was subsequently substantiated. Dr. Barnes was on the committee that decided that Chapman should lose his job —that there is no causal relationship stretches belief.
The Leeds general infirmary management and senior executives of the trust argued that Dr. Barnes was not immediately in receipt of money and therefore the relationship with Medgenix did not exist. At the hearing on Dr. Chapman's appeal against the redundancy notice, Dr. Barnes confessed that he was a consultant with Medgenix and he pushed their products and science into the department, even though they did not stand up to examination, as Dr. Chapman rightly said.
Barnes is part of the group which sacked Chapman, who was the whistleblower and man of integrity. Barnes is the man who failed to disclose what was going on.
In 1991, Dr. Chapman made another serious allegation about a project headed by Professor Whicher and indirectly involving Dr. Barnes. He alleged that there had been scientific fraud and that, in essence, results were being fabricated. The project was called Interleukin 6—IL6— and it was crucial to the development of biochemistry. It was believed that the project would give the Leeds general


infirmary a head start over other organisations in a commercial world. The research findings and processes were fraudulent.
Chapman argued for an inquiry and, to its credit, the university of Leeds set up an internal inquiry. Sadly, although the inquiry came to a conclusion on 9 March 1992, its report was not published. Yet Dr. Chapman's allegations were proven to be correct. It is worth studying the panel of investigators, which comprised Professor Willoughby of the experimental medical college of St. Bartholomew's hospital in London, Professor Gowland of the immunology department of clinical medicine at the University of Leeds, and Professor Brown of the department of biochemistry and molecular biology at the University of Leeds. They are three eminent people and not three junior scientists. They all came to the conclusion that the allegation of fraud against Dr. Evans had been proven. They said that the balance of evidence supported the view and that there had been fraud in so far as Dr. Evans has falsely claimed to have had bioassays performed on his putative IL6. That was the substance of the allegations and findings.
The management of Leeds general infirmary, under Mr. Stuart Ingham, said that it was not a matter for them, but it is, for two reasons. First, while a university employee committed the fraud, NHS moneys were involved. At least £100,000 of NHS money has been wasted on fabricated results. As taxpayers, we have a right to ask questions about the money. We also have the right to ask other questions. If scientific fraud has been committed in one of our great institutions, surely we should know what is going on. The results of the inquiry should be published.
Secondly, Professor Whicher was head of department. The university report criticised him for negligence. He was also a founder member of the hospital trust and a close friend of Ingham. Whicher was accused of negligence, and was promoted, and his friend Ingham is sacking Chapman. Only one conclusion can be drawn from that—the man of integrity goes down and the others survive.
The general infirmary management has an interest. It has been said that the matter solely concerned the university and that supervision of the project was nothing to do with the infirmary. Let us forget about the NHS money involved for the moment, although it is important. If a journalist fabricates stories for 12 months, one would expect him to be sacked and would ask questions about the editor of the journal. In the case of the Leeds general infirmary, the person who fabricated the story is still in a job and the editor's equivalent, Professor Whicher, has been promoted.
These are serious matters. We are dealing with an injustice against one person. I know that Conservative Members do not like it and I know why. We are talking about injustice and they are not bothered about people who suffer that sort of injustice. They are not bothered about the new-style management of the NHS, which has so little time for men of integrity. That is why it is prepared to sacrifice Dr. Chapman.
If Dr. Chapman is sacrificed next week, it will be a blow to the integrity of British science and a blow to the way in which we manage the NHS. Even at this late stage, the Government have a responsibility to intervene. I do not want a world or a national health service in which people are afraid to speak out and are not allowed to tell the truth because they fear for their jobs.
Since 9 April, health service trust managers have had a green light to sack whistleblowers. Dr. Chapman is one of a small and courageous group of people who want to defend the taxpayer and British science. The House has a responsibility to save that man's job, his future and the reputation of our science.

Mr. Michael Trend: Before the House decides to adjourn for the summer, with its leave I shall bring some concerns of my constituents to its attention. I warmly congratulate the two other Conservative Members who have been called to address the House for the first time today—my hon. Friends the Members for High Peak (Mr. Hendry) and for Havant (Mr. Willetts).
Windsor and Maidenhead, the constituency that I am honoured to represent, unlike the pudding which so disagreed with Sir Winston Churchill, has a clear theme. It is provided by the silvery thread of the River Thames in its most appealing reaches. The Thames flows softly from one end of my constituency to the other. To the west lie the charming settlements of Hurley and Bisham, which were both originally monastic foundations, where the former ecclesiastical buildings tell a fascinating tale. The Cookhams come next. They are famous for swan-upping and were once the home of that very individual painter, Stanley Spencer. Then comes Maidenhead, which owes its local pre-eminence to the bridge which made it an important post town on the road from London to Bath. Originally sited some way from the river, in recent years it has grown substantially and was one of the many towns in southern England which flourished in the 1980s. That growth has led to problems in the more recent past. Boulters Lock is more popular with my constituents in Maidenhead than the too many office buildings which are standing empty.
Maidenhead is a purposeful and popular town. Nevertheless, it should strongly resist further domestic in-filling and should not encroach on precious green belt land that surrounds it. I am utterly opposed to further erosion of the green belt.
Further downstream is the village of Bray, which is famous for its remarkably flexible vicar. As those who know the old English song will recall, the vicar of Bray changed his heart to match the political conditions of the day. He did so from
Good King Charles's golden days
to when
George in Pudding time came o'er".
I dare say he is a model for some contemporary politicians.
On the north bank of the Thames we then come to Eton, except that one does not just "come to Eton"—not even the many former Prime Ministers who went to that school. Facing across the river is one of the jewels of our universal heritage: Windsor. I almost feel like apologising for this embarrassment of riches. That town was honoured when King George V took its name for that of his family.
My predecessor in this House, Sir Alan Glyn, represented the royal borough of the royal county for 22 years. His attendance in this House was praiseworthy and, almost uniquely among Back Benchers, he had a recognised place of his own in this Chamber. With his indefatigable wife, Lady Rosula, he served the people of Windsor and Maidenhead loyally and assiduously. My constituency association recently honoured Sir Alan and


his wife in Sir Christopher Wren's magnificent guildhall at Windsor. On that occasion we also welcomed Sir Alan's predecessor and his wife, Sir Charles and Lady Mott-Radclyffe. Sir Charles represented the constituency for 28 years, so between them they chalked up half a century of service. Some Members and Officers may well remember Sir Charles; he is certainly still a legend in cricketing circles in the House.
While on the subject of former Members, I might add that Sir Christopher Wren was once a Member for Windsor, but unfortunately, for a few days only, following which he was debarred from the House because of an "irregularity" in his campaign. He was obviously not the best architect of electioneering.
With its outstanding buildings and extensive parks, Windsor struck the poet Michael Drayton thus:
Windsor, where abound All pleasures that in Paradise were found",
Paradise or not, however, the problems brought by millions of visitors each year have to be paid for in financial and environmental terms by my constituents. It is a matter of some concern that the community charge raised by the royal borough contains a substantial element —about £10 per year each for the people of Windsor and Maidenhead—to cope with those problems. That is a full 10 per cent. of the borough's standard spending assessment.
The Department of the Environment insists that day tourism affects many parts of the country and that it is difficult to measure, and I accept that that is probably the case on a national scale, but the evidence of one's own eyes in Windsor is too strong to be denied. Every year some 4 million day tourists come to Windsor, which is not by any means a large town. It is not difficult to visualise what that means in terms of traffic management, litter disposal, and other amenities that visitors require, the cost of which falls directly on my constituents. It cannot be beyond the skill of Government to develop a formula that would recognise those specific financial strains. If ever there was a special case, this is it.
I am also disturbed by the effect that the all-ages social index has on the SSA. Again, I refer to the evidence of my own eyes. It is nonsense to suggest that the differences between my constituency and the neighbouring town of Slough are so great as to justify the £100 per capita difference in Government support. That decision is largely due to the social index.
I cannot help feeling that the social index is an anachronistic way in which to judge local expenditure and that it has not kept pace with changing times. I hope that the Department of the Environment will be prepared to look at this matter afresh before entrenching the present arrangements in the new council tax.
I have endeavoured to take the House on a brief cruise down our great River Thames and to describe some of the riparian delights of my constituency. I recommend that as a form of leisure for all under pressure and in need of relaxation. In this House we are familiar with our own historic part of the Thames. I hope that others will share my discovery of another more gentle stretch which commends itself unselfishly to all.
I have covered the water and the land, and now I want to turn my attention to the skies. Maidenhead, and particularly Windsor, are continually affected by aircraft

on their way to or from Heathrow airport. From living in Windsor, I know that the horrendous noise of aircraft coming in to land can shatter the good night's sleep to which my constituents and I are entitled. I am conscious of the many benefits brought to the area by the airport and of the important part it plays in the local economy, but I believe that more can and should be done to control aircraft noise. In particular, I should like a total ban on night flights, much closer monitoring of the decibel levels produced by individual aircraft, and fines for irresponsible carriers.
My constituents share anxieties common to people in other parts of the country. In Windsor and Maidenhead, there are a number of victims of the criminal acts of Mr. Robert Maxwell. Many angry dentists come to see me in my surgeries. Other people are unhappy about the fate of whales which are slaughtered for commercial gain and of the distressing circumstances in which battery hens are kept. I would not be honest if I did not add that there is concern about the proposed combining of the two Household Cavalry regiments—the Lifeguards and the Blues and Royals. Hon. Members may know that Combermere barracks in Windsor is the present home of the Blues and Royals.
In common with other Members, since I was elected to the House I have been impressed by the amount of correspondence which comes our way. It has been instructive to see which public services have been most responsive and helpful. I have been pleasantly surprised at the speed and sensitivity with which local hospitals and doctors deal with complaints. Other letters, however, betray what I regard as a potentially dangerous development which faces parliamentary democracy in all parts of the developed world—the current tendency to blame Governments and legislatures for all life's ills. Such writers are often encouraged—irresponsibly, in my view—by insidious single-issue lobby groups. I believe that we are heading for troubled times unless we can be more precise in the limitations of government and the obligations of people.
Some years ago we talked of the nanny state. It is time that the influence of such a state was further curtailed. The Governments of the 1980s achieved much in that regard, but more needs to be done. Many different people have a part to play in that—the Government, Ministers, Members of Parliament, religious leaders, teachers, judges, parents and others with influence.
The essential order which lies at the heart of civil life is based on simple courtesies which must be transmitted from generation to generation. The spiritual element of life must also be given prominence in an increasingly materialistic world.
On the domestic side of politics, I warmly welcome the great education reforms introduced in the past 10 years. My constituency is blessed with excellent maintained schools, and the pupils are intensely proud of them and of their teachers. That represents best practice and the best guarantee for the future.
On foreign affairs, I believe that our country still has many important responsibilities throughout the world. In particular, we should never cease to speak up for the human rights of those unable to do so for themselves. I have a particular interest in the people of Tibet and on future occasions I may bring their plight to the attention of the House.
Like many colleagues on both sides of the House, I have now fulfilled a long-standing ambition to become an elected Member of the Chamber. I am not in the least bothered by the fact that for a number of weeks I lived out of a locker, nor that I have now acquired one desk, alongside many others, and one telephone, nor that I am not provided with hordes of researchers and that I have to spend long hours in this beautiful building when I could be spending more time with my family—as they say.
I do not believe that having to rough it slightly, compared with being de luxe middle management of a company or a pampered shop steward of a union, calls for any complaint. I am honoured, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and indeed humbled to be a Member of this great House of Commons. It is, I may say, an added bonus to be sitting on the Government side.
I also regard it as a privilege to have the opportunity to follow on the service of distinguished predecessors for my constituents of Windsor and Maidenhead, on whose behalf it is my intention to work to represent their interests. I intend to support the policies on which I was elected and the principles in which I believe.

Rev. Martin Smyth: It is my pleasure to speak following the able maiden speech made by the hon. Member for Windsor and Maidenhead (Mr. Trend). I trust that he will not suffer the fate of Sir Christopher Wren but will join his two immediate predecessors, who gave long and distinguished service in the House on behalf of their constituencies.
We have enjoyed three excellent maiden speeches today. I appreciated the humour of the hon. Member for High Peak (Mr. Hendry), who commented on the poor salaries that he had received from his employers. As an Ulster Scot, I appreciated his humour, but I know that he was not suggesting that the Scots were niggardly. Indeed, I am sure he knows that they are warm-hearted.
The hon. Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts) paid an excellent tribute to his predecessor, but I particularly appreciated his tribute to Lady Lloyd. Let us not forget that the spouses of hon. Members contribute much, and Lady Lloyd has served the community at large in her own right. I feel that we sometimes take for granted the services that our spouses provide to our constituencies and to the country in general.
I wish there had been time before the recess to deal with a number of other major issues, especially as we have gone astray with Masstricht. I should have liked time for the House to examine the whole question of constitutional and political reform. With the fervour in that direction that is evident in the country, it is a pity that the Prime Minister has not been able to express in the House his views about how the constituent parts of the nation should be governed as one part. I believe that in the onward evolution of democracy there is a place for a federal system, even in our nation.
I wish today to probe the role of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, particularly in its dealings with a part of the nation: Northern Ireland. I do not object to the Foreign Office representing us internationally. My gripe at times is that it does not represent us internationally as eloquently and efficiently as it should.
I have been puzzled at having received in June, and again this month, background briefs from the Foreign

Office, one entitled "Northern Ireland: The Economy and Employment" and the other entitled "Education in Northern Ireland: A New Direction." I wonder whether the Foreign Office gives the same service to the Scottish Office and the Welsh Office. Does it all mean that, despite the tributes paid to the Northern Ireland education service, there is a lack of education and ability in the Northern Ireland Office? Or is it simply that the Foreign Office is playing the same role as it has played on those issues over the years?
The briefs are helpful and interesting and I do not intend today to analyse or criticise them: I am simply probing them. Does the Leader of the House agree that it should be the role of the Northern Ireland Office, rather than of the Foreign Office, to explain the policies, economic issues, matters affecting tourism and the development of education in the Province? Are such briefs provided for all Government Departments for the benefit of people overseas who wish to know what is happening, for example, in the Department of Trade and Industry, in the Scottish Office and in the Department of the Environment?
To ask the question in a more sinister way, is it the continuing policy of Her Majesty's Government to keep Northern Ireland as a satellite in orbit, controlled by Foreign Office computers looking after international affairs rather than representing the rights of British citizens in Northern Ireland? Is it, as some have feared for a long time, part of a process of seeking to break up the Union? When talking to a distinguished servant of the British Government yesterday, I discovered again that there is speculation that the way forward might involve an independent Northern Ireland.
I wish to place on record the fact that if Northern Ireland—little Scotland, the Ulster Scots—goes, we would like to think that the House would go on to consider where Scotland goes in future. Lest some do not understand the analogy and relationship, Scotland means the land of the Scoti—the land of the Irish. We believe that we are part of that nation, where the O'Donnells of the glens of Antrim are similar to the O'Donnells of the glens of Scotland. Some relationships are conveniently forgotten.
Some of us wonder why the Foreign Office, in supplying talent on a regular basis to the Northern Ireland Office, including writing briefs, seems to be acting in a contrary manner in Yugoslavia. There, I gather, the Department believes that small groups who were part of other groups have a right to self-determination. Apparently a British warship is to be deployed off the coast of Yugoslavia. Does that suggest that one should be deployed off Dundalk bay because a Government there are giving, directly or indirectly, sustenance to those who seek the break-up of the United Kingdom and who act against the democratically declared wishes of the people of Northern Ireland?
As many hon. Members wish to take part in the debate, I shall not deal with other issues that I would otherwise raise. Recently the Prime Minister went to Czechoslovakia —among other places, to Prague, the home of Jan Huss, an outstanding reformer of an earlier day—and I sympathised and empathised with the right hon. Gentleman as he apologised on behalf of our people to the Czech people for the actions of a previous British Prime Minister who returned to Britain with a piece of paper proclaiming, "Peace in our time."
Can we look forward to the Prime Minister coming to Northern Ireland in the near future to apologise on behalf of another British Prime Minister who signed a piece of paper that was supposed to lead to peace, stability and reconciliation? While I have empathy with the former Prime Minister, who is now in another place, in some of her thinking, I have been amused by the fact that she now wants a referendum when she refused to accept the will of the people of Northern Ireland, democratically expressed at the ballot box, and imposed on Northern Ireland a programme which had the effect of taking us out of the normal role of government in this place. That is why I ask whether Northern Ireland is now being ruled by the Foreign Office rather than being accountable to the House of Commons through the Northern Ireland Office.

Mr. David Nicholson: I wish at the outset to congratulate warmly my three hon. Friends who have made maiden speeches. My hon. Friends the Members for High Peak (Mr. Hendry) and for Havant (Mr. Willetts) are both well known on these Benches for their previous service, before arriving here, to the Government—to the Leader of the House in one respect—and to the Conservative party. Their speeches were elegant, witty and effective, and we have high hopes of them. My hon. Friend the Member for Havant was the author of a pamphlet on the Government's national health service reforms which was the only presentation at the time that I found comprehensible in explaining those reforms.
My hon. Friend the Member for Windsor and Maidenhead (Mr. Trend) raised in his maiden speech a number of matters of interest to all hon. Members, such as whales, battery hens and low-flying aircraft. He also, justifiably, criticised in part the way in which Government grant to local government is assessed and the standard spending assessment arrangements, and many of my hon. Friends will appreciate those remarks.
All three maiden speakers showed great interest in raising problems affecting their constituencies. I shall raise three matters affecting my constituency, all of which have wider implications. Two of them have been long-standing matters of concern.
The first issue involves the problems faced by a number of my constituents in a part of Taunton called Galmington. They are owner-occupiers, and living in Woolaway homes that were constructed in the early 1950s. There was a public sector connection at the time, as almost all the people who originally lived in the homes were public servants of one sort or another, but they were ineligible for specific grants for repairs or improvements by virtue of the original arrangements drawn up by the company that built the homes.
The problem is that those homes are non-traditional build. They do not have faults now, but their owners are finding it extraordinarily difficult to sell them. I believe that there are 29 such homes involved: they are three and four-bedroomed houses. Ten of them are occupied by elderly people, several of whom want to sell them to move to smaller residential accommodation, and six are occupied by single people. Therefore, there is this unused housing space in Taunton, but people cannot move due to the problems associated with non-traditional build houses.
An estate agent wrote to one of the couples stating that last year,
there were a number of viewings, ranging between 25 and 30 applicants, although for one reason or another none of these applicants wished to proceed further. Some of these applicants, as you know, were concerned that the property was not of traditional construction.
The estate agent spoke of another applicant who had discussions with a surveyor and builder. He said that, while they did not inspect the property, they said:
the type of construction may prove to have problems in the future and … there was some doubt with regard to the saleability of properties of this type.
Last year, another couple with a similar residence found that several sales fell through once purchasers discovered the nature of the construction. An estate agent from a different firm told them:
I entirely concur with your views regarding the saleability of the properties you occupy in that the construction of the properties is deemed by Building Societies and other lending Institutions to be of a standard which is unacceptable to them as a security, unless, of course, remedial works"—
which would cost large sums of money—
have been carried out to the main structure and a certificate to that effect presented. It would, therefore, not be unreasonable to state that the properties. in their present condition and at this time, are unmortgageable.
Those are the problems that my constituents face. Due to various rules on the use of its resources, the local authority cannot take over those properties, although a number of the occupiers wish it to do so. I have been in correspondence with my hon. Friend the Minister with responsibility for housing construction, but we are faced with a growing dilemma, which has existed since before I was elected to the House.
The second problem I wish to raise has also existed for some time. I spoke about it just before Christmas, when we discussed the Competition and Service (Utilities) Bill in Committee. As Mr. Moynihan, then the Minister with responsibility for energy, confirmed in Committee, 2,400 properties in the United Kingdom are not connected to the electricity grid. Quite a concentration of those properties exist in the south-west, including some dozen or more on the edge of Exmoor in my constituency.
Since I raised the matter before Christmas and it attracted publicity, South West Electricity has offered to connect those properties to the grid. However, in return, it requires an extraordinarily rigorous mortgage, which is unattractive to those involved. The cost required by SWEB is far too high for my constituents to contemplate, and I fear that there may be no likelihood that their properties or others in the south-west will be linked to the grid. I know that my hon. Friends who represent constituencies with the same problem are trying to pursue the matter. In the year of grace 1992, I think that properties—apart from those that are very remote, and those involved in this case are not—should he connected to the electricity grid.
The third problem has recently developed and typifies debates that we have had, and will have, in the House on the future arrangements of the railway system. particularly freight transport. I think that many hon. Members will have heard of Taunton Cider. A day or so ago, Taunton Cider floated its shares on the market after a successful management buy-out last year. But it faces problems in transporting its excellent—and in summer, very popular—goods about the country by rail freight.
Since the withdrawal of British Rail's Speedlink, which served Taunton Cider well, and the collapse of Tiger Rail. Taunton Cider is allowed to move by rail one full train


load a week. That is adequate for its purposes in winter, but inadequate in the summer months. Only this Monday, my wife and I were driving through the village of Norton Fitzwarren, where Taunton Cider is based, when we passed in the space of four or five minutes three large lorries transporting the company's products. The village has a winding main street and those large lorries will pound up and down it, clogging up the roads of Taunton as they pass to the motorway.
As the Government consider the future of British Rail, particularly its freight as the channel tunnel conies on stream, I am anxious that we should find a way of servicing not only Taunton Cider in my constituency but the many other companies in the south-west that face similar difficulties transporting their goods by British Rail. I was informed of the wider scope of the problem by Taunton Cider this week. I hope that those problems will be addressed.

Mr. John McFall: I am grateful for the opportunity to make a pressing case to the Leader of the House on a constituency matter. I have made the right hon. Gentleman aware of my intention to speak today. The Government plan to introduce privatisation measures that will affect the Clyde submarine base and the Royal Naval armament depot at Coulport—two of the most sensitive military establishments in the United Kingdom. Trident submarines are berthed at the Clyde submarine base.
The Ministry intends to introduce market testing and privatisation measures into the base. That fact came to our attention through a report in one of the Scottish newspapers last week when we discovered that, despite ministerial agreement to the contrary, the Ministry was to go ahead with the plans. Alarm and concern was expressed not least by the unions at the base, and by the national organiser, Jack Dromey. He was quoted as saying that the privatisation of the support services could lead to the handling of the nuclear warhead being transferred to private contractors. The security implications of that would be considerable. Indeed, one commentator referred to the policy as a potential backdoor to nuclear terrorism.
Our concerns are threefold. The first involves the ministerial guarantee. I have a statement made by the Commodore Clyde in 1989 stating:
The Ministry of Defence at the highest level are prepared to exempt the Clyde submarine base work force and the rest of the base from contractorisation for the foreseeable future providing a package of sensible economic measures can be introduced within a realistic timetable.
Those economic measures have been introduced to the satisfaction of both management and unions at the base. However, although the issue was not raised in the Conservative manifesto, we find that, post-election, the Government intend to go ahead with the privatisation measures.
The ministerial guarantee was given on the grounds of security implications—on which I shall elaborate later—and operational considerations. The naval authorities do not want the work force to be privatised or contractorised, since it wishes to have direct control over it for the operational viability of Polaris and Trident submarines. That guarantee was given in 1989. Why does it now seem to be in jeopardy? That is the core of my case.
About 2,000 jobs could be in jeopardy in the constituency. That is bad enough in itself, but the security implications are the overriding concern on this occasion. As a member of the Select Committee on Defence in the previous Parliament, I am aware of the security implications. I was one of the members of that Committee who looked at privatisation measures and our sixth report in the 1989–90 Session examined the physical security of military installations in the United Kingdom. The report states:
With the trend of privatisation and contractorisation the MOD's responsibility for security cannot be diluted.
We were supported by the Public Accounts Committee which said that, in considering how to provide security services for departmental and service establishments, the Department's prime considerations must be the safety of the service and the people employed in it.
Our report on physical security highlighted some of the horrendous consequences of privatisation. There have been violations of security at the Clyde submarine base in the recent past. On 30 January 1989 three protesters forced their way into the base and entered the control house of HMS Repulse. No one stopped them. In October 1988 five protesters were taken into police custody for disrupting a major exercise designed to test emergency procedures in the event of a nuclear accident. In January 1986 the Ministry of Defence ordered a full inquiry into an incident in which three people dressed as Santa Claus walked on to two submarines at the base. If three people dressed like that can enter a nuclear submarine at Christmas without being stopped, sophisticated terrorists can do it without dressing up. The Leader of the House must address that issue.
The Select Committee on Defence investigation into physical security at military installations revealed some horrendous incidents. In one such incident the Ministry of Defence took on a private contractor and subsequently found that the base on which the contractor was working had been vandalised. An investigation revealed that it had been vandalised by the contractor's employees. Such are the dangers of privatisation and contracterisation without due regard to security and control.
The Select Committee on Defence said that the controller of naval security should conduct a searching investigation into all such aspects before further privatisation measures were undertaken. However, less than two years after that report I have to plead with the Leader of the House not to proceed with privatisation in the No. 1 military installation in the United Kingdom. There are lessons to be drawn form the report of the Select Committee on Defence and the incidents at the base. First, security does not come cheap. Secondly, Ministers are not always told about lapses in security and about the effect of their policies.
Mr. Hastie Smith, the under-secretary for civilian management, appeared before the Select Committee on Defence on 31 January 1990. A former right hon. Member, Sir Barney Hayhoe, asked him about reporting to Ministers and Mr. Hastie Smith said:
I am trying to phrase the answer as delicately as possible. Ministers who are told by officials that their policies are not working very well are inclined to doubt the enthusiasm of the officials for the policy.
That is to say, Ministers are not told because civil servants are scared to tell them that the policy is not working. A reckless policy of privatisation for the Clyde submarine base may not work, but perhaps in the light of Mr. Hastie


Smith's comments Ministers will not know that. The Leader of the House should communicate that information to his ministerial colleagues.
I spoke about the unions. They tell me that their members will not accept the abrogation of the exemption clause, which was freely given by ministerial directive. But that does not mean that unions have not been working alongside management. First, they have accepted and welcomed the implementation of the MOD's guard force. Secondly, they have openly said that they do not like market testing but realise that the Government have a mandate because the White Paper "Competing for Quality" and the citizens charter were put before the people in the election on 9 April.
However, the ending of the ministerial exemption on privatisation measures in the Clyde submarine base was not put before the electorate. Naval personnel and unions do not want it and it is incumbent on Ministers to heed that and not to accede to any decisions that may have been taken by civil servants.
In The Sunday Telegraph on 22 January 1989 the late Simon O'Dwyer Russell wrote about the three protesters who entered the control room of HMS Repulse. He stated:
Defence ministry officials told me that the armed forces Minister, Archie Hamilton, was 'absolutely hopping bloody mad' at this particular incident.
I share the Minister's sentiments, but, in addition, I am fearful of the future if privatisation proceeds and if the Government sacrifice quality and security to their obsession with what is cheapest but perhaps more dangerous.
As I said, security is not cheap. Will the Leader of the House arrange a meeting with the Minister of State so that we can look at the ministerial agreement and so that I can reassure my constituents and workers that the Government continue to consider the Clyde submarine base and the Royal Naval armament depot at Coulport to be the most sensitive security installations in the United Kingdom? I should like an assurance that security considerations will continue to be paramount in the eyes of the Ministry of Defence. In order to maintain such security, market testing must be rejected, and the Government must adhere to the line that was agreed as late as January 1989.

Mrs. Angela Knight: I add my congratulations to those that have been expressed to my hon. Friends the Members for High Peak (Mr. Hendry), for Havant (Mr. Willetts), and for Windsor and Maidenhead (Mr. Trend) on their elegant and interesting maiden speeches.
I should like to discuss a matter of considerable concern to most of my constituents. On 23 June, Her Majesty's inspector of constabulary published a report on policing in Derbyshire. It was the final report of a series and, uniquely for this country, a certificate of efficiency was not given to Derbyshire constabulary. That is in no way a reflection on that force or on the policemen and women who do an excellent job in the county. However, it is a reflection on the county council, which for some years has consistently failed to ensure that the police force was adequately funded to police the county satisfactorily.
While police numbers have risen elsewhere, numbers in Derbyshire have fallen and the force is now 140 below strength. The county has the worst police-to-population ratio of any force in England and Wales.
One of the conclusions of HMI's report was:
The Council allowed the manpower situation to become progressively worse.
That situation has been developing for some time. In debates last year, my hon. Friends the Members for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie) and for Amber Valley (Mr. Oppenheim) raised some of these issues, which I know are also of great concern to my hon. Friends the Members for Derby, North (Mr. Knight), for Derby, West (Mr. McLoughlin) and for High Peak (Mr. Hendry).
Some of the recommendations in the report of 23 June make extraordinary reading. They state that the police force should be brought up to establishment level, as should civilian support.

Mr. Harry Barnes: rose—

Mrs. Knight: I shall give way in a moment. The report's conclusions talk about training being reinstated and more resources being directed to tackling the record increases in burglary and crime. They might be obvious recommendations, but the fact that they have to be made is an example of how the police force has had to cut vital parts of its work because of the constraints put on it by the county council.

Mr. Barnes: The money that the chief constable asked Derbyshire county council for is the money which has been granted by the council for improvements in provision. The Government are asking that the improvements should be made in 10 months' time and the awarding of a certificate should then be re-examined. What difference will it make to the current position? There would be only three monthly reports and then an acceptance of a certificate on the basis on which the county council is already acting.

Mrs. Knight: The hon. Member has been too hasty. I shall come to that matter in a moment. I am sorry that he is not supporting the other hon. Members who represent Derbyshire constituencies in trying to ensure that there is adequate policing in the county.
I deal now with the police authority. As with other county forces, the police authority is a committee of the county council. The inspector of constabulary last year informed the chairman of the police authority, who is, incidentally, a Labour county councillor, that he considered the force inadequately resourced to provide an efficient service. The county council then requested an increase in the standard spending assessment, which it got.
At the end of last year, it emerged that in recent years the Derbyshire constabulary had not been allowed to submit a budget for consideration by the police authority. No other police authority is treated in that way. In the end, the chairman of the police authority agreed that the chief constable could submit a budget in February but, long before that date, the chairman said openly that he would not allow the police force a budget that was up to SSA level—the new SSA level which the county council had asked for. However, I am glad that the police authority took a different view, and granted a budget which was up to SSA level. The county council then overturned that decision. That is an appalling case of mismanagement of the police by the county council.
I make three further points. First, the recommendations of the inspector of constabulary's report should be implemented to ensure effective policing for my constituents in Erewash and for the residents of Derbyshire. To do that, the Home Office must continue to put pressure on the county council as that is the only way of ensuring that it discharges its duties. Although I am grateful to my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary for his persistence in seeking regular progress reports, there is, sadly, no evidence whatsoever of the county council having a real determination to deal with the issue properly.
Secondly, in former metropolitan counties such as South Yorkshire, the police force is allowed to precept separately, to raise its money separately from the local authority. That means that it has greater financial independence and is not dependent on the whim of a local county council and its spending plans. The police authority is still there, but it is able to discharge its duties more effectively because its financial decisions cannot be overturned, as happened in Derbyshire. Consideration should be given to that proposal for county forces so that they are allowed to precept independently.
Thirdly, few people doubt that today's police have a tough job, as increasingly violent crimes are committed on people and property. The police have an unenviable job, because we expect them to protect us. We should do all we can to support them, but that has not happened in Derbyshire.
For those reasons, I believe that the House should not adjourn until it has discussed the matter more fully.

Mr. Bob Cryer: I beg to move, as an amendment to the motion, to leave out '16th July' and insert 30th July'.
I am delighted to move the amendment and to provide an opportunity for the hon. Member for Erewash (Mrs. Knight) to engage in a wider debate. The three hon. Members who have today made their maiden speeches said that they were lucky to be here. We are all lucky to be here, but I suspect that they will be tumbling into the Lobby to vote for the House to rise on 16 July instead of voting for my amendment which would extend Parliament's sitting until 30 July.
Such an extension would enable my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes), who has gone into the subject of the policing of Derbyshire in great detail, to deploy the arguments necessary to destroy the speech made by the hon. Member for Erewash, who criticised the county council.

Mr. Barnes: rose—

Mr. Cryer: I shall not give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, North-East because we are so short of time.
It is not a good sign when there is consensus between the two Front Benches, as there is about the date of the Adjournment. We have a three-hour debate because there was a consensus in 1981 that the Adjournment debate should be so limited. If the same rules applied now as applied in 1980, the debate would be open-ended and everyone who has been here today, hoping to participate, would have had the opportunity to do so. However, several hon. Members have now left the Chamber because

they would have been unable to speak due to the three-hour time limit. I hope that they will vote for my amendment.
If the Government are short of subjects for debate, I can give them a string of subjects that we could debate in the extra fortnight between 16 July and 30 July. I shall be brief, because other hon. Members want to speak, but I shall mention two of those subjects, which are linked.
First, I hope that we have the opportunity—hence my amendment—to debate the vexed question of Menwith Hill near Harrogate where there was a demonstration last Saturday. About 150 people turned up to demonstrate against the listening base—or spy base—of the National Security Agency of the United States. I have here a copy of the New Statesman dated 16 July 1980. It contains an article headed "Phone tapping—America's big ear on Europe." The article reads as follows:
'Tinkerbell'—the national phone-tap centre which the New Statesman revealed in February—is only one part of a massive exercise in spying on civil and commercial communications. A much bigger role is played by America's highly secretive National Security Agency … operating from a remarkable base at Menwith Hill, eight miles west of Harrogate in Yorkshire.
Menwith Hill—unless the KGB has something even bigger —appears to be the biggest tapping centre in the world. From its heavily guarded operations room a special high-capacity cable runs underground to the Post Office microwave tower at Hunters Stones five miles away: this provides an umbilical cord link into the national telephone and telex system running through Britain. A direct tap which is placed on lines to France and elsewhere in Europe has been in operation for more than 15 years.
Phone tapping is being carried out in this country by the National Security Agency of a foreign power without any authority. Indeed, the agency does not even have Home Office warrants for tapping.
It can be argued—the Government advance the argument when they choose to release a few closely guarded words about Menwith Hill—that the facility can be used to tap into potential terrorist activity or other potential illegal activity. It may be that the Government had information about the Maxwell scandal through eavesdropping in this way, but they never used it.
The demonstrators at Menwith Hill found on Saturday that the station has grown instead of being reduced at the end of the cold war. It is becoming larger. There are eight radons instead of the two that were there when Duncan Campbell's article was written. Duncan Campbell was at the spy station addressing the demonstrators, as I was, and we intend to maintain the vigil against a foreign presence that is breaking United Kingdom law by tapping into the British Telecom network. There is a cable linking Hunters Stones tower and Menwith Hill that can carry 24,000 conversations simultaneously. It does not go into Menwith Hill to serve the telephone kiosks and the telephones of the 1,000 or more people who live there. Instead, its purpose is to ensure that the station at Menwith Hill can spy.
It is part of a system of intelligence eavesdropping. It is maintained by the National Security Agency of the United States, which was carrying out illegal activities in the United States. It was revealed to have been doing so in the immediate post-war period by the United States Congress. It is acting with impunity and the Government do not exercise control. That is why we should have some time over the next fortnight to go into all the details. There are


not many opportunities to go into the sort of detail that is necessary and to put the facts on the Hansard record so that those outside know what is going on.
It is a scandal that the House is proposing to wrap up on 16 July when there are so many issues to be debated. It is in a lacklustre position because the Government have abandoned, thank God, the Maastricht Bill. They are short of material to put before the House, but there are many issues that need to be discussed. That is why my amendment is necessary.
Secondly, there has been a parliamentary question and a written answer about the extraordinary decision to order a fourth Trident. There should have been a statement followed by a debate. I am all for keeping people's jobs going, but surely we should investigate the lack of a diversification programme as we move from the cold war to peace. There are many things that people need and there are many in manufacturing industry who could undertake the necessary activity to meet their needs. We do not have to go to war; we do not have to spend the huge amount of money on the programme that the Government have decided to embark upon.
Why is it so difficult to obtain £30 million for the rolling stock for the electrification scheme from Leeds to Bradford, with crazy arrangements for leasing this, that and the other? The Industrial Bank of Scotland says that it cannot grant the leasing money because it is frightened of privatisation and the Toms, Dicks and Harrys are dubious organisations who will take over railway services. When it comes to mass extermination, however, by means of Trident nuclear warheads, the money is available. There is no question of going to the Industrial Bank of Scotland and asking for a leasing arrangement to reduce the public sector borrowing requirement—that is what it is all about.
How much money is involved? Greenpeace has produced a document entitled "The Rising Cost of Trident". I do not have time to go into it in great detail, but I shall refer to a few salient points. The Government's estimate is slightly more than £10 billion while Greenpeace claims that that is an underestimate by £22 billion. It states that only £52 million of a £1 billion construction programme at the atomic weapons research establishment at Aldermaston is officially attributed to Trident. Yet under the construction programme it will not be possible, unless it is completed, to produce the full complement of warheads for Trident.
If we did not go ahead with the fourth submarine, we would save £1·3 billion. According to Greenpeace, if we cancelled the entire Trident programme, we would save £16 billion. We are, of course, crying out for money for the national health service, for local authority housing and for other vital needs. Against that background we should be aware of the money that could be saved if we cancelled the Trident programme.
I am a long-standing member of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament and I shall not leave it. It is a principled campaign and we should sustain the argument. I say that Trident is a waste of money; it is a costly exercise in futility. That is why I want to deploy the relative arguments, but unfortunately there is not sufficient time to do so because other Members want to speak. The debate demonstrates the great need for Parliament to extend its

sitting by a fortnight so that we can debate important issues before we get our buckets and spades and go on holiday.

Mr. David Porter: I am sure, Madam Deputy Speaker, that you are looking forward to a break. Some press hacks have described the Session as a very boring Parliament so far, but only you and the other occupants of the Chair can judge whether that is so. I certainly shall not oppose the motion for the Adjournment of the House for the summer recess. However, if the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) had sought to bring the House back in September, he would have carried me with him.
Many of us will be looking forward to spending a little extra time with our families while we and our fellow citizens become tourists. The help that the tourist industry will receive will be concentrated in large part on rural Britain. It is on rural Britain that I ask the House to focus before we adjourn, tempting though other matters are, such as the late and unlamented treaty of Maastricht.
I put in a bid for a timed Consolidated Fund debate, which will follow this debate. I drew 27th position with a debate entitled "Quality of Life in the Rural Areas". I gather that there was some discussion between the Department of the Environment and the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, neither of which thought that it should send a Minister to reply to my debate. That illustrates admirably the point that I wish to make. I want to know who is responsible for rural areas within the Government.
The traveller who fills his car with petrol may catch a whiff of country air and be under the impression that he has contracted the rural experience. The InterCity rail traveller may notice cattle in a field between housing estates and do-it-yourself stores as he travels from city to city. The name InterCity highlights a real divide, the rural-urban divide. It is what I call another divide, another country. It may not have the great appeal of the north-south divide, but it is real.
Just over five years ago, I made my maiden speech in the House. Describing my constituency, I said that support for inner-city priorities could be forthcoming from rural areas, but only up to a point. Most of my constituents live in or around Lowestoft, but more than 20,000 live in the market towns of Beccles, Bungay, Southwold and Halesworth or in the major villages and small villages. I am talking not about people who know that milk does not grow in bottles and packets but about those who make up the rural economy, those who are the rural community that so enriches our nation. Unfortunately, this community is easily forgotten. Few members of it can talk about being on the soil man and boy, but one in five people in England lives in a rural area.
Most hon. Members recognise that farmers in England have been going through a difficult period lately, but if we take any other issue—cottage hospitals, emergency services, prescriptions, village schools, housing, transport, planning, waste disposal, food-related industries, local services such as shops and pubs, the uniform business rate, the aging population or the shortage of youngsters—we find that there is a rural angle to it.
A million-member alliance of 10 national countryside organisations—as diverse as the Council for the Protection


of Rural England, the Country Landowners Association, the National Association of Local Councils and the National Council for Voluntary Organisations—has overcome tensions within its membership to speak with what it calls the rural voice. The members agree that it is essential to face and not conceal the tensions that often exist between different rural interests as well as the natural tensions between town and country. They seek from the Government a considered rural policy, wide in scope and as integrated as possible, which automatically considers the effects on the countryside of proposed legislation and spending programmes.
In the past, it has been suggested that there should be a House of Commons Select Committee for the rural areas. Of course, that is not feasible, but a rural audit of all policies would help a great deal. While rural residents do not expect special privileges just because they live in rural areas, they expect a recognition of the special needs and problems unique to rural areas. Their manifesto for rural England in the 1990s summarises the problems superbly and makes suggestions for overcoming them. That could form the basis for a rural audit for all Departments of Government, national and local. We already accept cost-benefit audits, a citizens' audit—which, in effect, is the citizens charter—environmental audits, which are becoming more popular, and even family audits. I ask my right hon. Friend to consider introducing a rural audit.
I had intended to raise two other points, but I am conscious of the time. I shall seek to catch your eye, Madam Deputy Speaker, at a future date.

Mr. David Winnick: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Waveney (Mr. Porter) for shortening his speech so that I can say a few words before my hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin (Mr. Grocott) replies to the debate on behalf of the Opposition.
I checked with the Library and, going back to 1950, there is no record of the House rising as early as it will rise this year. There should be no illusion about this—it is not happening for the benefit of hon. Members on either side of the House. It is entirely due to the good people of Denmark, who made a good and correct decision in their referendum. Had it not been for that referendum result, the House would he sitting well into July and perhaps into August. There would have been a tremendous amount of arm twisting by the Government Whips to ensure that their people went into the Lobby to vote for the Maastricht treaty. When the House returns, we shall know whether Conservative Members who hold critical views on that matter will have the courage of their convictions and vote as their consciences and principles dictate.
Before I discuss the position in my area. I want to say that I fully agree with those of my hon. Friends who have said that if there is to be any further military development relating to the former Yugoslavia, the House should be recalled. I have taken note of what the Prime Minister and other Ministers have said, including what the Leader of the House has said today. If circumstances change or if the Government's policy changes, it is only right and proper that the House be recalled and its authority sought for any further military developments in that terrible civil war. I hope that that point is well taken by the Cabinet.
We shall be breaking for the long summer recess when there is little sign of any economic recovery in the west midlands and the black country. Far too many people in my area are unemployed. Far too many of them, having been made redundant, have not been able to find jobs. Far too many young people cannot find jobs after leaving school. I have said before, and I shall continue to say, that it is disgraceful that so many of our fellow citizens in their 40s and 50s—the same age group as many Members of Parliament—have been made redundant and day after day, week after week, month after month, try desperately to find work. It is a lie that unemployed people are work shy and do not want to work. A large majority of my unemployed constituents are only too willing to work, but they are denied that opportunity.
It was recently announced that 170 jobs would be lost at three lock factories in Willenhall and surrounding areas. Willenhall, which is in my constituency, is the home of the lock industry. Unfortunately and sadly, it is likely that during the summer recess more jobs than those that I have already mentioned will be lost in that industry locally.
Treasury Ministers and the Leader of the House may make optimistic noises, but the local chamber of commerce in my borough—I do not suppose that it has many Labour supporters—published a survey only yesterday showing little activity in the job market, with 64 per cent. of firms surveyed saying that they were not recruiting labour. All in all, it was not an optimistic survey of what is likely to happen in the borough and in the black country.
The talk of economic recovery that we heard repeatedly during the general election has come to nothing. Ministers kept saying that if the Government were returned to office there would soon be signs of recovery, but I am afraid that there are little or no such signs. Indeed, there appears to be a correlation—the more that Ministers talk of economic recovery, the more the economy takes a nose dive. If that connection is right, if Ministers started talking pessimistic-ally about the economy, there might be some small sign of recovery.
Due to the local election results on 7 May, the Tories, with Liberal support, now run my council—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] Those shouts of "Hear, hear" from Conservative Members will not be echoed by the 68 gardeners employed by the council who have been given the sack. They will not be echoed by the council's direct service organisation, whose workers face redundancy because of the determination of the Tories, with Liberal support, to break up the organisation. A great deal of maintenance and repair work will go elsewhere—[Interruption.] I make no apology for saying that that is disgraceful. Tory Members can mutter, but it is indeed disgraceful to add to the unemployment in my borough and the black country, which have gone through two major recessions since the Government took office.
Now in addition to all the redundancies and job losses, the Tory council is doing its utmost to sack its employees. The Tories on the council gloat about that, which is disgraceful. I shall take every opportunity in the House and outside it to make my views known, no matter how many supporters the Tories who now control the council, with Liberal support, find on the Conservative Benches in the House of Commons.

Mr. Bruce Grocott: During recent years, it has often fallen to me to round up these debates. I have always tried in vain to find a general theme running through the speeches, because they are extraordinarily difficult debates to respond to. Today, I almost feel that I could say "Eureka", because a theme has run through virtually all the speeches from both sides of the House —that an enormous amount needs to be done, but little is being done by the Government. That theme was clear even in a number of speeches by Conservative Members.
I want to refer to the maiden speeches of Conservative Members. Even they unfailingly referred to the need for more Government action and often more Government expenditure. They were good speeches, and no doubt those who made them will return to the theme in future debates.
The hon. Member for High Peak (Mr. Hendry) made a speech of considerable wit, but he also called for more expenditure on roads in his constituency. The hon. Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts) likewise made a witty speech, but he also called for, among other things, expenditure on the resurfacing of roads in his constituency. He was concerned about school closures and other matters that involve Government action and expenditure.
The hon. Member for Windsor and Maidenhead (Mr. Trend), in an affectionate speech about his constituency, called for a rescheduling of grants and the reallocation of local government expenditure. In particular, he wanted more Government regulation of aircraft noise.
Those were all very good maiden speeches, and I look forward to hearing those hon. Members again. It was interesting that they all asked the Government to do more and to spend more.
The speeches by Labour Members were more modest. Most did not call upon the Government to spend more money, because we all know the difficulty in approaching the Government on that matter. Instead, most called for the Government to recognise existing problems, where intervention is extremely important.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris) called for a much more effective system of payment of disability benefits and a speeding up of the Government's administrative machine. I hope that the Leader of the House has noted that.
My hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-East (Mr. Turner), who has had to leave, had a particularly pressing constituency problem, in which I can declare some interest, having a nearby constituency, affecting some 500 jobs and requiring referral to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission. He urged the Leader of the House to draw that matter to the attention of his Cabinet colleagues, and I reiterate that.
My hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett), again not calling for great Government expenditure but in a speech which demanded a response from the Leader of the House, requested a proper inquiry into some unpleasant-sounding activities in the operation of the health authority in his part of the country. That was a reasonable request, to which I hope the Leader of the House will respond.
My hon. Friend the Member or Dumbarton (Mr. McFall) spoke for many hon. Members. It will be interesting to see how many Conservative Members raise such themes in the months ahead if the Government

persist with present policies. I echo my hon. Friend's concern about the effects of privatisation on Ministry of Defence depots, again a matter on which I can speak with feeling with regard to my constituency. He made a case that needed a response.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) was particularly concerned about phone tapping and possible intrusions into privacy. That again is a matter which requires a response from the Government. My hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick), another nearby west midlands constituency, effectively pointed out the continuing effects of the recession.
There was a collection of requests from both sides of the House. I have mentioned only those of Conservative Members who made maiden speeches, but there were many more requests for Government intervention, Government activity and very often Government expenditure as well.
What sort of response are such requests receiving from the Government? I do not anticipate any great responses. We have not been receiving any responses in recent debates of this sort. Can it be that the Government cannot respond to such requests because they are short of money? It is difficult for Labour Members to believe that, because for six years Ministers have been lecturing us on the Conservative economic miracle.
I recommend hon. Members to start re-reading the Conservative election manifesto. I found one phrase which has particular resonance in the light of today's debate. Under the section headed "Your choice at this election", it says:
We know how tough it has been for many but we are poised to move forward again, lacking only the spark of confidence with which a Conservative victory would ignite recovery.
[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] Tory Members respond predictably. If they are waiting for ignition, my advice to them is not to hold their breath. We have seen no sign whatever of any economic ignition or recovery since the general election. There has been precious little in the constituencies that Labour Members have the honour to represent.
According to the Government's election manifesto, it cannot be a shortage of money which prevents the Government from responding to all the requests that have been made, so is it a shortage of parliamentary time? Governments are always complaining that there is no time to do all the things they want to do, so I thought that it was worth checking what sort of hours we have been sitting since we returned after the general election.
In the last year of the previous Parliament, the average daily sitting was eight hours 23 minutes. We all know—even the Government admit it privately—that the Government did not really know what to do for the last year of the previous Parliament. They were simply waiting for the general election and filling time as best they could. Since the general election, the average daily sitting has gone down to eight hours and 10 minutes. This is a Government whom one would expect and assume to be enthusiastic following the election, wanting to do all sorts of things. But there is no indication that that is the case.
We face a most bizarre political situation, which the Lobby correspondents recognise well enough and which the Government can barely recognise but which they know in private to be true. Just three months—that is all it is —after the general election, the Government are calling


for an early recess, the earliest that anyone can remember, as many of my hon. Friends have said, and they are having tremendous difficulty filling parliamentary time. with shorter sittings than we have been accustomed to.
The truth is that the Government have lost their way almost before they have begun. They are wondering how to fill the next four years—if they survive that long. We shall do our best at by-elections and by other means to prevent their survival. The Government must be wondering how on earth to pass the time. They have shown no evidence of any enthusiasm or vision—not that we often look to Conservatives for vision—in the three months since the general election.
What will the Government excite us with in the months that lie ahead? I am always trying to be charitable to the Government in circumstances such as this, but I looked in vain for any source of inspiration for them. It so happens that this week is the first anniversary of what the Government claim to be their bible, the citizens charter. I decided that we should monitor the citizens charter, particularly a nice little section—I am indebted to my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North for drawing one of the key elements in it to my attention in a timely way—entitled "A charter for job seekers". I am sure that Conservative Members carry a copy of the citizens charter around with them, but I shall remind them of that paragraph. It says:
The Citizens Charter will reinforce the Employment Service's aim of giving unemployed people, and others who use its services such as employees and those changing jobs, the individual approach that they need".
I want to let the Government share an insight which they seem woefully incapable of understanding. Unemployed people seek not an individual approach or a nice office in which to be told that there are no jobs, but jobs. That is clearly not understood by the Government. Since the Government published the citizens charter 12 months ago, the total number of unemployed in Britain has risen from 2,213,784 in May 1991 to 2,707,892, and that despite the charter for job seekers and the individual attention that they have all been guaranteed. That is an increase of 500,000.
We approach the summer recess with a Government who, in three short months, have managed to lose their way. They never had any vision, but now, particularly in the aftermath of Maastricht, they do not even know how to pass the time. They have no philosophy other than the hope that something will turn up, and no policies which will ensure that something does. They are deaf, as I am sure the Leader of the House will shortly demonstrate, to the pleas for more expenditure from their own Back Benchers and, I am sure, deaf also to my hon. Friends. The Government, three months on, are, unbelievably, past their sell-by date.

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Tony Newton): Perhaps it is an interesting illustration of my deafness, but I entirely failed to hear the hon. Member for The Wrekin (Mr. Grocott) offer the House any advice about whether to vote for the amendment. I heard the speech of the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer), and the pleasure of listening to it almost tempted me—but not quite—to advise the House to accept his amendment. I shudder to think of the response that I would receive from my hon. Friends and,

indeed, his hon. Friends if I gave such advice, but it struck me as notable that the hon. Member for The Wrekin refrained from doing so. My only other thought about his speech was that he appeared to be complaining about what amounted to the advance implementation of the. Jopling report—I think that he referred to shorter hours and longer holidays—on which I was pressed to make progress by the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) earlier today.
As ever, the debate has been interesting. This is the second occasion on which I have had the privilege of being asked to wind it up. We heard three elegant and attractive maiden speeches from Conservative Members. My hon. Friend the Member for Windsor and Maidenhead (Mr. Trend) took us on what he described as a cruise around the riparian delights of the Thames. Given some of what has been written about our rivers in recent weeks when we have been short of rain, I was pleased to hear that the Thames was still flowing through my hon. Friend's constituency. He paid charming tributes to his predecessors, whom we remember well—Dr. Alan Glyn and, before him, Sir Charles Mott-Radclyffe. I had not realised that Sir Christopher Wren was another of my hon. Friend's predecessors, albeit rather briefly.
My hon. Friend's speech was remarkable in two respects. First, he almost tempted a Government Whip to break his normal vow of silence. My hon. Friend the Member for Berkshire, East (Mr. MacKay)—who is, I believe, my hon. Friend's neighbour—was making distinct murmuring noises of approval in response to some of his remarks about aircraft noise; indeed, he is doing the same now. Secondly, by mentioning a number of issues on which he had been lobbied by his constituents, my hon. Friend the Member for Windsor and Maidenhead managed to perform the equivalent of signing about 25 early-day motions in 30 seconds. I am sure that he will be duly noticed as a result.
I was greatly struck by the maiden speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts), whose path has crossed mine many times. He, too, made a charming and attractive speech—an appropriate maiden speech. I can only say that my hon. Friend can hardly cause me more difficulty in the House than he occasionally caused me outside it. He was a frequent and thoughtful writer on social security matters, but I was not always able to respond to each and every one of his thoughts, and we had our differences of opinion. I well remember appointing him to the Social Security Advisory Committee, from which—unhappily—he has had to resign, but to which he made a distinguished contribution. He paid tribute to his predecessor, Sir Ian Lloyd: I am certain that Sir Ian would have been fighting for a place on the Select Committee on Science and Technology, which we are about to establish, and that he would have made an important contribution.
I do not know what to say about my hon.Friend's reference to the works of P. G. Wodehouse. My knowledge of the novels is not as extensive as it might be, although I remember reading a number of them in my youth. I can, however, assure my hon. Friend that I do not see him as the Jeeves of the House.
Like my hon. Friend the Member for High Peak (Mr. Hendry), I remember his predecessor, Chris Hawkins—another man with plenty of ideas, who nobbled me with a new one almost every time I passed through the Tea Room, and who made a lively contribution to all our proceedings. As my hon. Friend says, he and I had the


pleasure of working together closely when he was my special adviser, both at the Department of Trade and Industry and later at the Department of Social Security.
I endorse all that my hon. Friend said about the beauties of his constituency, although I had better not endorse his claim that it is the most beautiful in the country. That would upset every other hon. Member—which I do not wish to do—and might even upset some of my constituents, because my constituency contains some pretty nice areas too. I can support what he said about the attractions of his constituency, however, having had the advantage of staying with him after the Conservative party conference the year before last, visiting the Buxton opera house with him and seeing the beauties of the Georgian crescent to which he referred. I shall draw his remarks to the attention of the Ministers whom they concern.
The right hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris) made a number of comments about disability benefits and the legislation on disabled people's rights that he feels should be enacted. Some of what he said about disability benefits sits rather ill with the criticisms that he advanced when we introduced those benefits, claiming that few people would benefit and that they would gain very little.
We always expected that a major effort would be required to introduce disability living allowance, but there was an even larger surge of claims than we had anticipated. My hon. Friends do not consider the position acceptable, and—as I believe the right hon. Gentleman knows—they are taking firm action to try to accelerate the handling of cases. Nearly 400 extra staff have been added to the 2,000 already employed in disability living allowance and attendance allowance work, and I hope that that will contribute to the improvement that both the right hon. Gentleman and I want. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will understand if I rattle on, because I have only three minutes left.
The hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) courteously informed me before making his speech that he would seek to raise the question of the Victoria Works Engineering Services pension scheme. He may know that, when I was Secretary of State for Social Security, I met some representatives of the scheme—along with his predecessor, who is now Governor of Hong Kong. The Government are well aware of the problems faced by the 73 pensioners to whom he referred, and, as the hon. Gentleman may know, officials are already in touch with the scheme's trustees to see what can be done to help. I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security will pay close attention to what the hon. Gentleman has said.
My hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire, South-West (Sir A. Grant) made a number of points about car crime, and spoke of Minister's efforts to persuade motor manufacturers to improve the security of vehicles. My hon. Friend is entirely right in thinking that my right hon. and hon. Friends continue to press the matter. The motor manufacturers have undoubtedly made good progress in some respects, but more action is needed, and the effort to introduce greater vehicle security will certainly continue.
My hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale (Sir F. Montgomery) referred to the problem of ticket

touting. As he knows, we have an outstanding commitment to legislate on ticket touting in respect of football matches when parliamentary time allows. I am afraid that I cannot predict exactly when that will be.
Let me tell the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-East (Mr. Turner)—who, I understand, has had to leave—that the takeover that caused him concern is now being considered by the Director General of Fair Trading. He will be aware that it would be inappropriate for me to comment further. As for the speech of the hon. Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett), I think that I would be wise not to enter into the details of the case that he raised.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 32, Noes 157.

Division No. 60]
[7.08 pm


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
McFall, John


Adams, Mrs Irene
Mackinlay, Andrew


Ainger, Nick
Madden, Max


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Meale, Alan


Barnes, Harry
Morley, Elliot


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Raynsford, Nick


Bermingham, Gerald
Reid, Dr John


Chisholm, Malcolm
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)
Spearing, Nigel


Eagle, Ms Angela
Tyler, Paul


Ewing, Mrs Margaret
Wareing, Robert N


Flynn, Paul
Welsh, Andrew


Foster, Donald (Bath)
Winnick, David


Gerrard, Neil
Wise. Audrey


Gordon, Mildred



Harvey, Nick
Tellers for the Ayes:


Hoyle. Doug
Mr. Bob Cryer and


Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)
Mr. Dennis Skinner.


McAllion, John





NOES


Aitken, Jonathan
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James


Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
Duncan, Alan


Amess, David
Duncan-Smith, Iain


Arbuthnot, James
Elletson, Harold


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)


Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)
Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)


Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)
Evans, Roger (Monmouth)


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Faber, David


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)
Fabricant, Michael


Baldry, Tony
Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas


Bates, Michael
Fenner, Dame Peggy


Bellingham, Henry
Forman, Nigel


Beresford, Sir Paul
Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)


Booth, Hartley
Freeman, Roger


Boswell, Tim
French, Douglas


Bottomley. Peter (Eltham)
Fry, Peter


Bowis, John
Gallie. Phil


Brandreth, Gyles
Gill, Christopher


Brazier, Julian
Gillan, Ms Cheryl


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Golding, Mrs Llin


Browning, Mrs. Angela
Gorst, John


Burns, Simon
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)


Burt, Alistair
Hampson, Dr Keith


Butler, Peter
Haselhurst, Alan


Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)
Hawkins, Nicholas


Cash, William
Heald, Oliver


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Chaplin, Mrs Judith
Hendry, Charles


Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)
Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Home Robertson, John


Coe, Sebastian
Hordern, Sir Peter


Congdon, David
Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Jack, Michael


Cormack, Patrick
Jessel, Toby


Couchman, James
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Davies, Quentin (Stamford)
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)


Dixon, Don
Jones, Robert B. (W H'f'rdshire)






Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Shaw, David (Dover)


Kirkhope, Timothy
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Knight, Greg (Derby N)
Shersby, Michael


Kynoch, George (Kincardine)
Sims, Roger


Lait, Mrs Jacqui
Speed, Sir Keith


Lawrence, Sir Ivan
Spink, Dr Robert


Legg, Barry
Sproat, Iain


Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)
Steel, Rt Hon Sir David


Lidington, David
Steen, Anthony


Lightbown, David
Stephen, Michael


Lilley, Rt Hon Peter
Stewart, Allan


Luff, Peter
Streeter, Gary


MacKay, Andrew
Sweeney, Walter


Maitland, Lady Olga
Sykes, John


Malone, Gerald
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Mans, Keith
Taylor, Rt Hon John D. (Str'gf'd)


Marshall, John (Hendon S)
Taylor, John M. (Solihull)


Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)
Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Thomason, Roy


Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)
Thurnham, Peter


Merchant, Piers
Trend, Michael


Milligan, Stephen
Trotter, Neville


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Twinn, Dr Ian


Moate, Roger
Walker, Bill (N Tayside)


Molyneaux, Rt Hon James
Wallace, James


Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Neubert, Sir Michael
Watts, John


Newton, Rt Hon Tony
Wheeler, Sir John


Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Widdecombe, Ann


Page, Richard
Wiggin, Jerry


Paice, James
Willetts, David


Patnick, Irvine
Wilshire, David


Porter, David (Waveney)
Wolfson, Mark


Rathbone, Tim
Wood, Timothy


Richards, Rod
Yeo, Tim


Riddick, Graham
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)



Robinson, Mark (Somerton)
Tellers for the Noes:


Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)
Mr. Sydney Chapman and


Ryder, Rt Hon Richard
Mr. Robert G. Hughes.


Sackville, Tom

Question accordingly negatived.

Main Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House, at its rising on Thursday 16th July, do adjourn until Monday 19th October.

Statutory Instruments, &c

Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): With permission, I shall put together the motions relating to statutory instruments.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(5) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c).

SUMMER TIME

That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Summer Time Order 1992 be made in the form of the draft laid before this House on 23rd June.

PARLYTIC SHELLFISH POISONING

That the Food Protection (Emergency Prohibitions) (Paralytic Shellfish Poisoning) Order 1992 (S.I., 1992, No. 1387), dated 12th June 1992, a copy of which was laid before this House on 15th June, be approved.—[Mr. Mae Kay.]

Question agreed to.

Orders of the Day — CONSOLIDATED FUND [APPROPRIATION] BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Question, That the Bill be now read a Second time, put. forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 54 (Consolidated Fund Bills), and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Question, That the Bill be now read the Third time, put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

Motion made, and Question proposed. pursuant to Standing Order No. 54 (Consolidated Fund Bills),That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. MacKay.]

Orders of the Day — Homelessness

Mr. Nick Raynsford: I am grateful for this opportunity to raise the subject of homelessness at this stage in this series of today's debates. [Interruption.]

Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): Order. I want to hear the hon. Member. Right hon. and hon. Members who are leaving the Chamber should do so quickly and quietly.

Mr. Raynsford: It is right that Parliament should debate homelessness before it adjourns for the summer recess. The extent of homelessness in Britain is a terrible scar on the face of society and a savage indictment of our failure to provide adequately for the housing needs of all our people.
Official figures show that the number of homeless households accepted by local authorities in England has trebled over the past 15 years—from 50,000 to 150,000. Homelessness has continued to increase relentlessly throughout the lifetime of this Government and, sadly, all the signs suggest that it will continue to do so until present Government policies are reversed.
The figures are only the tip of the iceberg, because they exclude all those who apply to local authorities but are refused help—usually because the council does not accept that they are homeless or decides that they have themselves contributed to their misfortune. The statistics exclude also those who have never applied to a local authority—usually because they are not eligible for housing even if they are homeless, including most single and childless homeless people.
It is a sobering comment on the official statistics that they do not include the majority of those who sleep rough on the streets at night. Because they are single and childless, they are unlikely to qualify for local authority help and so have not bothered to apply. Such figures as are available generally come from surveys made by voluntary organisations. Last year, a Salvation Army survey estimated that there were around 75,000 homeless single and childless people in London, including 2,000 literally on the streets—rough sleepers, 18,000 in hostels, 25,000 in cheap lodgings and bed-and-breakfast accommodation, and 30,000 in squats.
Other surveys confirm that homelessness is by no means confined to London and other big cities—even though numerically its incidence is much higher there. In countless rural communities throughout Britain, the problem is manifested as the sons and daughters of long-standing residents discover that they cannot afford or obtain housing in the area, and are forced to leave and to move elsewhere. Many end up in the big cities—some of them homeless and on the streets, and at risk.

Mr. Peter L. Pike: My hon. Friend makes the point that homelessness is no longer a problem associated only with London and other big cities. Changes in benefits have contributed to homelessness becoming a national problem. That is the tragic and disgraceful result of 13 wasted years of Tory rule.

Mr. Raynsford: My hon. Friend highlights a point that I hope to raise later. I wholly concur with his view that wider economic and benefits policies also contribute to homelessness nationally.
The fundamental reason for homelessness increasing so alarmingly given by anyone who has seriously studied the problem over the past 30 years is the shortage of suitable affordable housing in places where it is needed—and particularly the shortage of rented accommodation. It is hardly surprising that more and more people are at risk of homelessness, when the past years have seen the biggest loss in rented housing in Britain's history.
The combination of the long-term continuing decline of private renting and the recent. dramatic decline in the supply of council accommodation has proved a lethal cocktail. More than 2 million rented homes have been lost from those two sectors.
The one and only growth area in rented housing is the welcome increase in housing association lettings—but it is nowhere near adequate to offset the losses. The appalling human consequences of that loss, which was deliberately fuelled by the Government's attack on local authorities, have been extensively documented over the past 10 years —most recently in the Audit Commission's devastating critique of the inadequacy of Government housing policy. The Government, however, turn a deaf ear to all the calls by experts holding widely diverse political and apolitical views. The most recent came in a new report from Shelter, which argues the need for between 30,000 and 90,000 extra homes a year over the next decade.
Even the Audit Commission's plea that the Government should publish projections of the need for social housing—the obvious starting point if policies are to be devised to respond to those needs—has so far met with no response. All we hear is the oft-repeated statement—I dare say we shall hear it again tonight—that the Government hope that housing associations will achieve a programme of 50,000 homes a year over the next three years. That will be welcome if it is achieved, but, as the commission proves, even if it is and if all possible empty properties in the public sector are brought into use, there will still be a critical shortfall, and the crisis will inevitably worsen.
A shortage of housing is not the only factor that contributes to homelessness. Personal, social, and economic factors are also at work. No one with any experience of working with and on behalf of homeless people denies that sometimes people contribute to their own misfortune. That is not a reason for turning away from their needs. In his classic 1970 study on homelessness in London, Professor John Greve commented:
There are chronically inadequate families among the homeless and there are families whose only misfortune is the loss of a home. The former need support: both need a home. Between these extremes is a large number of families who have a variety of disadvantages in addition to the lack of a home. In some ways their difficulties might be resolved or reduced to manageable proportions by adequate housing.
Sadly, those wise words have not prompted the response that they deserve.
Among the other factors at work is the evolution of policies towards institutional care. Most right hon. and hon. Members support the concept behind care in the community, but it is impossible to do other than express alarm at the implications of numbers of vulnerable people being pitched out of institutional care without making a success of the care in the community policy. The small supportive hostels and group homes which provide the right environment for the discharged mentally ill or recovering alcoholics are two of the most obvious examples of which there are many others. How sad it is,


therefore, to have to report that, when asked last month whether it could estimate the housing costs arising from the community care plans and the implementation of the Children Act 1989 for each of the main groups of people in need, the Department of Health had to reply that it had no such estimates available.
It is only nine months before that policy comes into effect next April. What a comment it is on the lack of preparation for the implementation of a major plank of Government policy when the lead Department cannot provide estimates of the likely financial implications of providing the new smaller supportive accommodation that is required to ensure the success of the care in the community policy. I fear that the outcome will be more distressed and vulnerable people at risk of homelessness or actually on the streets.
When considering the wider economic factors, there is also the crisis of repossessions, of which there were 75,000 last year. According to evidence published by Roof magazine and, most recently, by the Rowntree Trust, the number is likely to continue at a relatively high level for at least two years because of the huge overhang of people in debt. Some 275.000 people are more than six months behind with their payments.
Although there has been a short-term fall in the number of repossessions in the first months of this year, the number of people in long-term debt continues to rise. The consequence is bound to feed through in due course into a further high incidence of abandonments and reposses-sions as borrowers decide that there is no way out, that they cannot cope, that there is no way in which they can rescue their position and that it is better to hand in the keys, or as the lenders decide that they can no longer afford to allow the debt to continue to escalate.
I should be surprised if significantly more than half those 275,000 households more than six months in arrears at the moment manage to get through the next two years without losing their homes, either by handing in the keys or through repossession. That implies a home loss of around 70,000 a year over the next two years as a result of mortgage problems.
The Government's response to that crisis, as to so many other aspects of the housing and homelessness crisis, has been to resort to cheap palliatives to try to cover up the worst public signs of the problem, while doing nothing to attack the underlying causes. Hence the abortive mortgage rescue package, which appears to have attracted only 12 takers to date. It depended on the financial institutions to bail out the Government simply because the Government were not prepared to provide the subsidy necessary to ensure a really effective mortgage rescue scheme.
Similarly, the Government's rough sleepers initiative was designed to sweep the streets of London, but significantly not anywhere else in the country, in advance of the general election. That initiative is now coming to an end, and the signs are that there is no commitment for on-going finance to maintain it in the years ahead.
There is escalating dependency on temporary accom-modation for homeless people, with 62,000 households, the highest number ever recorded, now living in temporary accommodation as at the end of March this year—the latest date for which figures are available. One third of those households are in expensive and unsuitable bed-and-breakfast hotels. That problem is left unresolved because of a shortage of adequate move-on accommoda-tion. As the supply of permanent homes dries up and more

and more people are waiting longer in bed and breakfast and other forms of temporary housing, much of which is not just squalid and unsatisfactory but actually more expensive than permanent homes, we must ask why the Government are dithering.
Looking at all those trends—the shortfall of affordable housing, the demand for new homes, the need for care in the community provision, the continuing loss of repossessed homes from the owner-occupier sector, the backlog of people in temporary accommodation—any informed observer can only conclude that the number of homeless people in Britain will continue to rise alarmingly over the next year or two. If the problem is compounded. as some commentators have feared, by further cuts in social security benefits, notably housing benefit and sbenefits for the young unemployed, the escalating crisis will become an unstoppable avalanche, the like of which we have never seen even in the grim history of the past 13 years.
The Government have no policy to deal with the problem. All that Ministers can offer is temporary palliatives which are short-term and limited in their impact. like sticking plaster on gaping wounds. Ministers may speak soothing words while stepping over the homeless on their way to the opera. but they have failed to reverse, or even halt, the escalating crisis. In doing so. they have betrayed a whole generation whose formative experiences too often comprise the seedy lodging house. the squat or the cardboard box on the street.
It is time for a fresh start. It is time for Ministers to recognise that their current policies are leading nowhere but towards ever more of the same human misery of which we have seen far too much in the past 13 years. We urgently need new initiatives which grill attack the causes of homelessness in Britain today, not just tinker with the symptoms
We urgently need an expanded housing programme, using all available resources, including the tragically wasted local authority capital receipts, which would, if released, generate desperately needed move-on accommodation to take some people from temporary accommodation. The rough sleepers initiative should not be discontinued or watered down by the Treasury, as appears likely. It should he expanded to cover areas outside London where there are people sleeping on the streets. It should be expanded also to ensure that there is within London adequate provision of move-on accom-modation as well as the much needed emergency housing into which people on the streets can move first of all.
The problem of mortgage default and repossessions should be attacked seriously with a combination of a mortgage benefit scheme, a properly funded mortgage rescue package and tough new restrictions on financial institutions to prevent them repossessing unless they can demonstrate that all available alternative options have been explored.

Mr. Bernard Jenkin: The hon. Gentleman has described a number of areas in which we need a large volume increase in housing available for rent and for purchase. That will mean either a big expansion in public spending, as the hon. Gentleman obviously recommends, or, as Conservative Members would prefer. a big expansion in the amount of private sector finance attracted to those types of housing. Is not the problem the fact that, when we go for big expansion, we fail to deliver


the quality? Does he not agree that the citizens charter has a big role to play in ensuring that we achieve the quality of housing—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman's intervention is becoming a speech.

Mr. Jenkin: I apologise. Madam Deputy Speaker. I was about to finish.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Yes, you will—right now.

Mr. Raynsford: The hon. Gentleman made one good point when he said that a rapid expansion of housing, which has occurred in the past, without concern for quality would be a mistake. However, he failed to make the point that a rapid contraction of provision has resulted in people on the streets and people living in far worse conditions. The bed-and-breakfast hotel is far worse than the worst jerry-built council housing of the 1960s.
I accept that we need the maximum use of all available resources: I made that point. We must attract more private investment by various routes into the provision of housing. We need to encourage housing association programmes, but we also need council programmes to be restored to a reasonable level to provide a mixture of housing options, choice for the customers and an adequate supply. Everyone who examines the issue seriously—I offer the Audit Commission as evidence of that—must reach that conclusion. Housing associations alone cannot deliver enough homes.
In addition to the various items that I have recommended so far, we must also consider benefit entitlement. Benefit entitlement should be restored for 16 and 17-year-olds, and the injustices done to the under-25s should be reversed. The concept of the boarders' premium, advocated very sagely in another place earlier this week, should be explored urgently to assist particularly young single people to allow them to survive without recourse to rough sleeping or squats.
There should also be a co-ordinated programme to ensure that unsuitable and expensive temporary accommodation is discontinued as soon as possible. That should include targets to reduce the number of homeless people in bed-and-breakfast accommodation by 50 per cent. in 12 months and by 75 per cent. within two years. A limited amount of targeted initial finance, which would be needed to achieve that, would of course in turn be more than offset by the long-term savings of getting people out of bed and breakfast into permanent housing, which all the studies show is cheaper for the public purse than bed and breakfast.
When the Secretary of State for Health outlined her White Paper yesterday and announced the new health targets, she failed to mention homelessness until prompted from the Labour Benches. She and her Government colleagues, as well as Conservative Back Benchers, must be aware of the extent to which homelessness and bad housing damage the lives, health and prospects of thousands of our fellow citizens.
It is time for those connections to be recognised. It is time for the Department of the Environment to recognise the need to set targets to tackle the needs of the homeless. I have suggested some targets tonight; hon. Members may be able to suggest others. Above all, it is important for the

Government to recognise the alarming crisis. The matter is set to deteriorate further unless urgent remedial action is taken. The spectre of homelessness will cast an ever longer and darker shadow over our society unless those responsible wake up and accept the need for new policies and new energy to tackle and overcome that crisis.

Mr. Graham Riddick: I warmly welcome the opportunity to discuss homelessness. I applied for a debate on it, and although I was unsuccessful in securing it, I congratulate the hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Raynsford) on his great success and on his speech. The hon. Gentleman returns to the House with quite a reputation as a housing expert. In his moderate speech, he showed that he was prepared to embrace a wide range of options. Unfortunately, he made the same parrot cry that we hear time after time from the Opposition—that the Government should allow local authorities to spend more money building council houses. The hon. Gentleman failed to tackle two of the fundamental problems of homelessness: first, the appalling record of local authorities in the provision of public housing and, secondly, the difficulties that have been experienced by the private rented sector.
Last year, I visited a day centre for homeless people living in bed-and-breakfast accommodation just down the road in Westminster. Many of them were mothers with young children. Before I arrived, I expected that they would trot out the standard line about homelessness and attack the Government and their policies. However, I should have known better, because they were ordinary people living in the real world. Almost without exception. they had two common complaints. First, they complained about the way in which local councils treated them as homeless people. They were treated like dirt on the floor. That upset me greatly. Secondly, they would say, "I know of an empty council house just down the road from where I am living right now. Why can't I go there?" I would say.
"Yes, indeed, why can't you go there? That is a very good question."
The hon. Member for Greenwich and his colleagues have often suggested that local authorities are the answer to the problems of homelessness. Local authorities are part of the problem. Because of the sheer incompetence of the way in which that housing is managed. the number of council houses that are allowed to lie empty, councils' refusal to co-operate with the private sector, and the political manipulation which drives many of our council housing policies, local authorities are one of the prime causes of today's housing difficulties.

Mr. Clive Soley: It is important to have some facts. Will the hon. Gentleman comment on Government figures which show that local authorities have an average void rate of 2·5 per cent., housing associations 3·1 per cent., the private sector 5·9 per cent. and his own Government no less than 16·1 per cent.? As local authorities have the best record of all put together, why does the hon. Gentleman not tell us about that?

Mr. Riddick: We hear that comment time after time. The reason why a significant number of Government houses are empty is that they are Ministry of Defence houses. Many of those service people are posted overseas. The hon. Gentleman must accept that. He knows that it is


true. Does the hon. Gentleman justify the fact that Liverpool has nearly 6,000 council houses, or 9 per cent. of its housing stock, lying vacant? Does he agree that that is an absolute disgrace? It is shocking that almost 100,000 council houses are standing empty, and it is shameful that local authorities have rent arrears of £430 million. Opposition Members say that local authorities should be allowed to build more houses and manage more of this country's housing stock. I just do not buy that.
I am sorry to say that such problems are not confined to the empires of lunacy based in Liverpool, Manchester or some London boroughs. I have some of those problems in my own back yard. My local council, Kirklees, which is Labour-controlled, has almost 1,000 council houses standing empty. That makes Kirklees council the 23rd worst-performing local housing authority out of 333 authorities. Kirklees also has rent arrears of almost £4 million, which makes it the 33rd worst-performing authority in respect of rent arrears.
I recently learned that, a few years ago, the local private landlords association in Huddersfield raised £25 million of venture capital for low-cost housing in the area. Private landlords offered to buy derelict houses from the council and provide houses for low-income families, but the council refused to co-operate.
For the past four years, investment in housing associations in Kirklees has been extremely low, not because the money for such investment has not been available, but because Kirklees council has been refusing to co-operate with housing associations on purely ideological grounds. The Labour-controlled council does not approve of housing associations. I wonder what the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) has to say about that.
My right hon. Friends might know that I raised that issue on the Floor of the House last year. I am pleased to say that, as a result of my exposure of that shocking behaviour by Kirk lees council, that absurd policy has been reversed. The result has been dramatic. Housing association investment in Kirklees for the financial year 1992–93 will rise by almost £6 million to £18 million, which is a massive increase of 46 per cent. The number of homes provided by housing associations is to increase from 275 last year to 409 this year, as a direct result of that increased investment by housing associations and the change of policy by Kirklees council. Housing associations now feel able and willing to invest in our area, but no thanks to Kirklees council. Week after week, local Labour councillors bleat about homelessness in Kirklees and say that it is because the Government refuse to provide enough money for the council, yet the council's own dogma and pigheadedness have helped to bring about the problem.
Many private landlords in Huddersfield refuse to take tenants who are in receipt of housing benefit, not because they have anything against such people but because it takes landlords between three and six months to recoup housing benefit from the local authority. That is just not good enough. I plead with my hon. Friend the Minister not to allow councils to build any more houses.

Mr. Tony Banks: That is already happening.

Mr. Riddick: Councils are allowed to build a small number, as we know. Because of their record, they should not be allowed to build any more houses.
The Government need to be more radical and move the provision of public rented accommodation out of the hands of local authorities. That could be done by increasing the role of housing associations and contracting out the provision of housing stock to private companies. It might be necessary for local authorities to have a place in co-ordinating the placing of homeless and needy people in appropriate accommodation, but even that is dubious as long as Labour councillors regard public housing as something to be manipulated for their own political ends.

Mr. Raynsford: I accept that, for political reasons, the hon. Gentleman may not want to listen to what Opposition Members say, but has he read the Audit Commission's report? Does he accept its view that, even if the Government achieved their full housing association programme and even if local authorities brought all empty properties back into use, there would still he a shortfall and there is a need for a continuing local authority contribution?

Mr. Riddick: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising that point because it moves nicely on to my next point, about the private rented sector. That sector needs to be stimulated.
It is absolute nonsense for anyone to suggest that the Government have done nothing to increase housing provision. Today, there are slightly fewer than 23 million homes; back in 1979, there were slightly fewer than 21 million—an increase of 2 million. That is no mean figure. We should not forget that. One sad and telling fact is that, in the same period, the private rented sector has continued to decline as a direct result of rent controls and rent restrictions. Indeed, as a result of the Rent Act 1974, which extended security of tenure and so-called fair rents to furnished lettings, 400,000 private dwellings ceased to be available between 1974 and 1979. That was Labour's contribution to homelessness.
I am pleased to say that the Labour policy appears to have been arrested by the Government's new policy. At the turn of the century, 90 per cent. of housing was accounted for by the private rented sector. Today, that figure is 8 per cent. In Germany the figure is 45 per cent. and in countries such as Sweden, Switzerland and France, 23 per cent. There is clearly scope to increase the private rented sector in Britain.
There are hundreds of thousands of empty privately owned rooms, fiats and houses. Many are not let because people still believe that they will have difficulty removing the tenants if they wish to do so. The way to improve the conditions in which private tenants live and to keep rents down is not to apply controls which act as disincentives to let but to increase the supply. That is why I welcome all the steps taken by the Government to expand the private rented sector.
Clearly, many people are still not aware of the more free and open situation. They are potential landlords. Their empty properties and rooms are potential homes. I urge my hon. Friend the Minister to launch a crusade to turn potential landlords into real landlords and potential homes into real homes. That is the challenge. Let us stimulate the private rented sector. Let us fill those empty council houses. Let us build co-operation between local authorities and the private sector. Let us get politics out of local authority housing.
Let us enable housing associations to build more homes. In that way, we could provide for the men sleeping rough in London and for the families in London and, indeed, in my constituency. living in cramped bed-andbreakfast accommodation. We could provide what they want—somewhere warm and comfortable to live, somewhere that they can call home.

Mr. Neil Gerrard: I support many of the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich (Mr. Raynsford). He gave evidence of the increase in homelessness; it is increasing for a variety of reasons.
I looked up some of the figures for my local authority to see what had happened in the past year. I saw an increase of more than 40 per cent. in the number of people who need to be rehoused because they have been evicted by private landlords, whom we have just been told would provide the answer. There was an increase of 157 per cent. in mortgage defaults. Most striking of all, there was an increase over two years of 400 per cent. in the number of single people with a mental illness who had to be rehoused because they had been thrown out of institutions.
Of course, there is a great deal that the statistics do not reveal. Statistics tend to show only the people who are rehoused as priority cases. They do not include all the people who are actually or potentially homeless. Especially, they do not show how many young and single people are homeless. As has already been said, the figures are not available.
Various surveys show that in London at least 100.000 young people live in unsatisfactory accommodation such as squats and bedsits, sleep rough or are homeless at home —living with friends or relatives in precarious circumstances where they cannot expect to stay permanently.
Most of us welcome some of the Government's initiatives such as the sleeping rough initiative and so on. However, they are not enough, they are not long term or permanent and they are not countrywide. Other aspects of Government policy do nothing to address the problems of young single people. People receive less benefit if they are under 25. If they go to a private landlord, the landlord does not reduce the rent because the person is under 25. The benefit is cut, but the rent is not.
There is a further impact on single homeless people. Councils often have to house families in accommodation that could be used for single people. I know what happens in my area. The pressure on housing caused by coping with homelessness puts a great strain on the local authority's housing policy. Homeless families end up going into one-bedroom accommodation because that is all that is available. At first, they are grateful. It is preferable to being on the street or in bed and breakfast. But they quickly realise that they are trapped in accommodation where they will be overcrowded. They are added to the housing transfer list the moment that they arc rehoused. For anyone else seeking a transfer, there is virtually no transfer activity.
People in temporary, bed-and-breakfast accommoda-tion suffer perhaps the most of all. They do not know when they might be moved to other temporary accommodation. In many boroughs no support services arc provided. Such

families suffer a complete lack of stability and the consequences for the family and the children's education are terrible.
In newspaper reports today we see another aspect of the impact on people in temporary accommodation. In today's The Guardian there is a report on people who apply to the social fund for grants and loans. The research commissioned by the Department of Social Security shows that the decisions taken on whether to award a grant or loan are completely nonsensical. The researchers said that the only pattern that they could find in the decisions was similar to that which would obtain if awards and refusals occurred completely at random. One is just as likely to be refused a grant or loan as to be awarded one. One's housing conditions are irrelevant. About three quarters of the people who received loans found that the money taken out of their income support made it impossible for them to live.
The most crucial requirement is investment. The private rented sector has been in decline since the first world war —for 80 years.

Mr. Riddick: Why?

Mr. Gerrard: The hon. Gentleman asks why. The Government have been in power for 13 years and the private rented sector has continued to decline throughout that period because nothing that the Government can do will reinvigorate it. A measure of—[Interruption.]

Mr. Tony Banks: The 1988 Act.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. It is difficult to hear the hon. Member because of seated interventions.

Mr. Gerrard: A measure of what has happened in investment in public housing is that the number of starts by local authorities in London in 1990 was 2 per cent. of the number in 1978. The lack of investment seems to be recognised by everyone except the Government.
In 1990, the then Conservative chair of the London Boroughs Association said:
A substantial increase in the financing of social housing provision and the release of more council house sales proceeds is urgently required in order to prevent a crisis becoming a catastrophe".
None of that has been done.
Last year there was a national inquiry into British housing in which the Duke of Edinburgh was involved. On the renewal of housing, it said:
So little housing has been demolished that every new home built today in Britain will have to last 2,700 years if present trends of repair and demolition continue."—
[Interruption.] That is not my figure; it comes from the national inquiry. The Audit Commission report said that, depending on the range of projections for the increase in the number of households during the next 10 years—that number is increasing—social housing provision, and not council housing, needs to he in the region of 60,000 to 90,000 per year. In 1990 it was 28,000. Under current plans, whatever happens, if the Government meet every target for housing associations, they will not make up that shortfall.
The Audit Commission clearly said that expenditure was required and that even if local authorities did nothing but maintain existing stock and support the private sector, there would be a shortfall of £1 billion in 1993–94, on present plans. The commission also said that, whatever


local authorities did about efficiency, there would still be a large gap between supply and need—not supply and demand.
I was first involved with housing in 1974, when I became the chairman of a London borough housing committee, in Waltham Forest. I inherited a mess. There were many empty properties, about 200 to 300 were squatted and there were long waiting lists. Now it seems like the beginning of the homelessness crisis, although it was bad enough then. The next four or five years were the only period that I can recall from my involvement in housing when it felt like real progress was being made. We did not achieve perfection, or cure all the problems, but there was progress, because there was real investment. At the end of four or five years of investment in that authority there was virtually no squatting, empty properties were being used, or given to housing associations, and people were being rehoused from the waiting list.
The reasons for the improvement were that we had done something about efficiency in management. There is no excuse for inefficiency and for properties standing empty when they could be used. We also used housing associations. I believe, as do many of my hon. Friends, that we should use housing associations, and we have no problem with that. However, councils were also building houses and buying properties on the open market and were able to make up some of the gaps in their provision.
The cuts started in 1978, and it is true to say that they began under a Labour Government. The famous speech by Anthony Crosland—when he said that the party was over in local government—signalled the beginning of cuts in investment in housing and it has never recovered. Until we make simple changes in policies and put real money into public and social housing, homelessness will increase.

Lady Olga Maitland: Thank you for giving me the opportunity to reflect on the cause of homelessness, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I listened with interest to the comments of the hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Raynsford). In passionate tones, he said that homelessness has caused a savage scare in our society and he feared that it would treble in 15 years.
Putting aside the natural human agony involved, I fear that the hon. Member was suggesting that homelessness was somehow the Government's fault. We must try to put things in perspective. Society has changed enormously. there are now more divorces than ever before, and each time that parents or a couple break up, the husband or wife must move into another home, which creates greater pressures. One family in three breaks up, so there are enormous pressures on local authorities and society to provide for homelessness. Therefore, when we consider homelessness, there is no point in saying that the Government should have done this, that or the other. It is more a question of what we are doing.
There has also been speculation about the number of people who have suffered from mortgage repossessions. I know that that is an agony and I have just had to deal with one such case in Sutton. The hon. Member for Greenwich mentioned that 70,000 families would come into that category, but my research shows that the overall figure makes up about 12 per cent. of people who are made homeless. A sense of proportion is relevant, although it is a tragedy for the families concerned.
The hon. Member for Greenwich gave the impression that the rough sleepers initiative was a poor effort by the Government. barely worthy of the enormous funds put into it. You spoke as if they were going to cast it aside, but that is not the case. The Government have committed £96 million to the rough sleepers initiative, to be spent over three years. You are absolutely right—the initiative is largely focused in London, because that is where all the assessors agree that there is the most acute need. However, more money has now been allocated, giving about £300 million to the south-east to renovate properties for the people who most need them.
It has been suggested that 16 and 17-year-olds are not on income support and are therefore tossed out on the streets. Again, we should have a sense of proportion. All 16 and 17-year-olds living at home have the option of going on a youth training scheme, of further education or of getting a job. We accept that some fall through the net, but there is no question of them being thrown into the gutter. Income support is made available for the disabled, for lone parents, for those estranged from their parents and for those who have left care and are living away from home.

Ms. Glenda Jackson: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for giving way. Last week there was a meeting of the all-party group on homelessness in this place to consider the precise issue that the hon. Lady is talking about—single homeless 16 to 18-year-olds. Five young people were present. One had had to leave home because the domestic situation was unbearable and untenable, and three had been in care all their lives until now. Each and every one of them said that they had nowhere to go but the street. They were sleeping on pavements or in doorways. The severe hardship payments which the Government usually produce to explain that those young people are not without any financial support —[Interruption.] It is no use winding your hand in that fashion, hon. Gentlemen. Those young people are sleeping on our streets now. You may find it intensely amusing, but they do not.
If young people present themselves at offices where severe hardship payments are made, they only get the money in their hands if they are assisted by a voluntary worker. They do not know how the system works and no one within the system is helping them.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): Order. I hesitate to interrupt new Members, as I do not want to throw them during their speeches, but it is an appropriate opportunity to remind them that they must not use the word "you" unless addressing the Chair, and that interventions are supposed to be short.

Lady Olga Maitland: I thank the hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Ms. Jackson) for her comments, although from my experience there is no reason or excuse for young people to be in the circumstances she described. I should like to meet those young people and to help them, because there is no reason for them to be in such difficulties.
It is interesting to note that the number of people sleeping rough has dropped dramatically. Voluntary organisations in central London estimate that, since the rough sleepers initiative was introduced in January, the


number of those sleeping on the street has dropped from 1,000 to about 400. It is expected that that number will fall to nil within a few months.
Another important factor is that, no matter how hard one tries to provide accommodation for those sleeping rough. they do not all want to take it up. When a journalist or someone else conducts an investigation down the Strand and taps people on the shoulder to ask why they have not taken up the accommodation provided, they answer that they do not like the discipline, there is not enough television and entertainment or that they do not like this or that. Some people do not want to be taken care of. Although we have a responsibility to make accommodation available, it is important to point out that people do not always want to take up that option.
I have particular concern, which I raised briefly a few weeks ago, about homeless people who are put into bed-and-breakfast hostels. Last year, I spent a week in a hostel for the homeless in Haringey as part of a television documentarry on the experiences of people in hostels. It was a salutary experience for me. I was put into a hostel despite the fact that Haringey has thousands of empty housing units. For some reason, it seems incapable of matching the homeless to its void properties. The hostel in which I stayed was clean and adequate. My bedroom was perfectly okay, although it just had one single bulb by which it was difficult to read.
During that week, however, I met other homeless people in other hostels, whose conditions were quite different. The communal kitchen was filthy, tiles were coming off the walls. the cookers had never been properly cleaned, the floors were ripped, the bathrooms did not properly function and the lavatory seats were often Missing. The condition of the bedrooms was also intolerable. with broken furniture, cockroaches and so forth.
If it was possible to put me into an adequate. clean hostel, why has Haringey not ensured that all its other hostels are of the same standard? I suspect a lack of control. We should have independent inspectors to ensure that everyone has a decent. clean bed. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will consider setting up an independent inspectorate of those hostels. Certain standards should be insisted upon, and hostels should be subject to a code of practice. People may be homeless. but they are entitled to be treated as dignified human beings. That was not the case for the people I saw suffering in some hostels in north London.
It is also interesting to note how different local authorities handle homeless people. Haringey chucks its homeless into hostels. That may be an easy option. but it is not practical. Although Haringey tries to keep families together in the same building. they arc sometimes separated. It is extraordinary to consider that the cost of putting a family of four into a hostel is about £400 a week. That money could be far more practicalln spent on placing those families in private rented property.

Mr. Soley: They cannot do it above a certain level.

Lady Olga Maitland: They certainly can.
My local authority, Sutton and Cheam, has gone to a lot of trouble to ensure that people can live in dignity and at a lower cost to the local authority. That authority has

just 19 couples living in bed-and-breakfast hostels, while it has placed 110 families in private rented property, which it has rented for a set lease from the landlords. It has another 147 families living in temporary accommodation in empty council stock, and about 50 families living in housing association property.
Unfortunately. some local authorities display a certain laxity and lack of care about the condition of homeless families. I congratulate my local authority on putting so much effort into caring for the homeless—it is supported in that by the Conservative Government—and for ensuring that families are housed in flats rather than bed-and-breakfast accommodation.
We should make the arrangements governing rented accommodation more flexible, so that better use can be made of it. Part of the problem is that, in the past, landlords were afraid that they would be unable to get tenants out. It is important to remember that there are now 600,000 empty housing units—often flats above shops. I welcome the fact that the Government are now providing a grant to bring those flats back into the rented sector. I also welcome the fact that the Government are making it easier for young homeless people to rent a single room from householders. The householder can now let out a room, tax-free, for £65 a week. Such a system benefits both parties.
Sometimes, a family or a single person who may want to rent a flat cannot afford to pay the deposit in the first place. I was interested to learn that Colchester council helps those who have become homeless either through repossession or who have been discharged from the Army, who have the prospect of a real income but who cannot put the money up front for a deposit. That council has found that it is worth its while to pay the deposit in advance, and it is rare for people to default on their payments. The Government should consider such a scheme.
Thurrock council operates a scheme for those on income support. Sometimes there is a delay before someone receives housing benefit, and that means that that person is often refused rented property because the landlord is concerned about the delay in getting his money. The council has come up with a damage-limitation scheme, which guarantees the money to the landlord right away. It also operates a system for people who agree to have their housing benefit paid directly to the landlord.
I also agree with the call for greater flexibility in the housing market. Concern has already been expressed about the constraints on housing association tenants, who do not currently have the right to buy their homes from those associations.I would welcome a re-examination of that arrangement so that such purchases are possible in the future. That would make a tremendous difference to the housing market.
The important thing is to keep people moving and to get them into homes. Above all, we must ensure that people continue to live in the dignity that they deserve.

Mr. Jim Dowd: I am not sure how to follow that rich mixture of prosperous, suburban, middle-class bigotry, fantasy and insensitivity, so I shall get on with the points that I had intended to make, for time is pressing and many hon. Members wish to take part in the debate.
It is particularly appropriate that we should be holding this debate in national housing week, and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich (Mr. Raynsford) on the good fortune and persistence which has led to our considering the whole issue.
To native Londoners, homelessness is not just an indication of the decline of this once grand city. Perhaps the finest metaphor for the London of the 1990s is the image of young people sleeping in cardboard boxes in the west end and along some of London's major thoroughfares.
An elderly resident of Sydenham, in my constituency, told me recently, as she recalled life during the war, that the situation was never like it is today. "Why is it like this now?" she asked. The Government have never adequately answered that question.
Homelessness can be defined in a number of ways. We can count the number of people who literally do not have a roof over their heads, but if we include in the definition of homelessness those who are in need of a decent home —of somewhere adequately to meet the needs of themselves and their families—the numbers rocket alarmingly. I shall not this evening trade figures, because my hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich did that more than adequately. Nor shall I attempt a detailed analysis of the position. I shall concentrate on one theme— the inadequacy of Conservative policy for the homeless.
The winter weather initiative was part of the rough sleepers initiative. It was a totally inadequate response to a problem that had grown to epidemic proportions. If more care had been taken earlier, the scheme would not have been necessary. The fact that it was necessary was a condemnation of the inactivity of the Conservatives over the years.
I shall tonight draw attention to one scheme—I call it a project—in Lawrie Park road in Sydenham, in my constituency. It is not just a hostel. I call it a project because that is what it has become. It was set up with winter weather initiative money, but it has done far more than simply provide people with a place to keep them off the streets. The project has expanded into counselling and giving advice, and Conservative Members will be interested to hear that it is located in a leafy street close to the boundary with Bromley. A great advantage of that is that it is a long way from the west end and the temptations and influences—in particular for the youngsters for whom the hostel was created—there. It is also a long way from the royal opera house, so Conservative Members are not at risk of tripping over them.

Mr. John Marshall: Shame.

Mr. Dowd: It is a damn shame that Government insensitivity is forcing the scheme to close, throwing the youngsters back on to the streets. Perhaps it is suffering that fate because it is in a desirable location. I suspect that if it were located in a draughty church hall and was open for just a few months, with people being taken in to get them out of the weather, it might be treated with more sensitivity.
The project of which I speak was a purpose-built hostel constructed by the NatWest bank for its management trainees while in London, so the standard of accommoda-tion is not just adequate but exemplary for most of the young people who are there. It is designed for youngsters aged 16 to 25, the most vulnerable group among the

homeless in London. There is an equal number of young men and young women, and in terms of those most at risk, young women on the streets of London must be at the top of the list.
There are 40 places there, with a capacity for 80. It has never been fully funded to enable it to be used to its full capacity, so the scope for improvement is enormous. Of the 250 young people who have been through the project since 1991, nearly 50 have gone on to obtain permanent or semi-permanent accommodation. In other words, they have found homes and are now permanently removed from the streets of London and have been given a chance to make something of their lives.
The project was funded until the end of March, when the winter weather initiative money ran out. Surprise, surprise—more money was found to enable it to be run until the end of May. I leave hon. Members to conjecture what happened between the end of March and the end of May. Department of the Environment funding ceased, and unless arrangements could be made to enable the project to continue, 40 young people would have been thrown back on to the streets of London.
People need homes in all weathers, not just between December and March. They need permanent, decent homes just as much as we all need them, and Conservative Members have acknowledged that. We approached the Minister informally on a couple of occasions to see whether anything could be done to help the project, but the answer was negative. That is why I have felt compelled to raise the matter this evening, because if the project closes, neither I nor those connected with it will allow it to go with a whimper.
Various organisations are involved, notably the South London family housing association, the Tudor trust, the London housing trust and the London borough of Lewisham. Few of the residents came from Lewisham originally. The local council is trying to find money to keep it open, for it recognises that it has a role to play in providing homes for Londoners and people who come to London.
Those connected with the project have even approached Telethon to see whether money can be obtained from that source to keep the project going. That of itself represents a condemnation of Government policy, with money-raising game shows on television having to be devised to give young people a decent home and a reasonable start in life.
The youngsters came to the House of Commons a few weeks ago with a petition. It was, for many of them, their first visit to this place, and they were confused. I would not say that they were overawed; they simply found the place incomprehensible. As a result of the attitude of the Government over the project, I am forced to share their conclusion. I sent the Minister their petition and received a wholly inadequate response. Not once has the Department offered any assistance or advice on how the project might be kept open. The Government have adopted a Pontius Pilate-like approach and have said, in effect, "That is the end of the matter. You knew when the money was dished out how far it would go. It has now gone and you are on your own."
That happens in many areas of Government spending. Money is provided up front and, its having been provided on a one-off basis, it is left to others, notably local authorities, to go on dealing with recurring problems which are not amenable to one-off solutions. The idiocy


and futility of that approach is demonstrated by the fact that come next December, if the winter weather initiative is introduced—there is doubt about whether it will be—it is admitted that the Lawrie Park road hostel will qualify under the scheme. That shows the bankruptcy of Government policy.
I implore the Minister to reconsider the matter, to provide some hope to the project and its residents and, by so doing, to give some hope to every homeless person in this city and throughout the country.

Mr. Gary Streeter: In view of the pressure on time, I shall not make the measured, well-balanced and reasoned speech that I intended to make. Instead, I shall concentrate on one issue that must be aired as a result of the comments of Opposition Members, who do not come to the debate with clean hands. They come here with hypocrisy and humbug. Why, when we discuss homelessness, will they not tell us about Southwark borough council, which is Labour controlled and which is owed £30 million in uncollected rents? Why will they not tell us of the 8,000 empty properties owned by that borough council? Imagine what it could do, if it collected those rents, to bring those unfit and dilapidated units back into occupation. Labour inefficiency is depriving the people of that borough of decent homes in which to live.
Instead of trying to beat the Government with a big stick, Opposition Members should describe the position in the borough of Newham, which has rent arrears of £11 million—[Interruption.]—and more than 5,500 units unfit for human occupation. If Newham collected those rents, it could renovate those houses and flats and people could move into them.
I speak with some knowledge of the area, for not only have I been to Newham but I worked for Southwark district council. I know what I am talking about. The hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Raynsford) might refer to the rent arrears of £13 million in his borough. He should castigate his borough council for not collecting that money and using it to bring unfit units back into public use.

Mr. David Shaw: I thank my hon. Friend for giving way in the middle of his litany of extremely worrying cases which, as he says, should be brought to the public's attention. Has he considered the fact that it has been reported in Southwark that three of the people with severe rent arrears are Labour councillors?

Mr. Streeter: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. He has reinforced my opening remarks that Opposition Members do not come to the debate with clean hands.
If we are to tackle the problem of homelessness, we must take a radical approach to local authority housing management. We must make local authority landlords far more efficient. To that extent, I welcome the excellent consultation paper "Competing for Quality in Housing". I welcome the Government's radical approach in making local authority landlords contract out and buy in the services that they need, when they need them, at the best prices, to give their tenants the best service. That is the way forward if some of the unfit, unlet, empty units are to be brought back into public service.
When my hon. Friend the Minister considers his response to the consultation paper, will he bear in mind that I do not believe that it goes far enough? The consultation document states that the client will remain the local authority housing committee, still steeped in the local authority culture that we so desperately need to get rid of.
Will my hon. Friend consider converting housing committees and departments into semi-detached housing boards or companies, as the Institute of Housing suggested? We should do that, not so that they can build new properties but so that they can better manage the ones that they have. Unless we do that, many Labour-controlled local authorities will seek ways of getting round compulsory competitive tendering by making life impossible for contractors who win tenders or by ensuring that in-house people win them, thus gaining only minimal savings.
If we introduce those radical changes, we shall make great savings in housing management. Local authority landlords will become much more effective and one of the factors causing homelessness will have been diminished.

Mr. Tony Banks: The hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Mr. Streeter) says that he knows Newham—I must test him on that some time, but not tonight. I shall tell him something about Newham and the voids that exist there. A large number of them are in the Taylor Woodrow Anglian tower blocks. The hon. Gentleman is probably too young to remember Ronan Point, but people had to be moved out of those tower blocks because they were unsafe. The Minister for Housing and Planning knows about those tower blocks as we went on an inspection together and saw how badly they had been built. They were jerry-built flats. We cannot place people in some of the accommodation units in Newham because the structures are too dangerous.
The hon. Member for Sutton might think it is a good thing for Labour party people to be placed in dangerous structures, but I do not think so. If the hon. Gentleman wants to know why there is a housing crisis in London, he does not have to look around to blame local authorities. It is a cheap and easy shot for Conservative Members to say that the housing crisis is caused by Labour local authorities. It is the crass, narrow-minded, narrow-sighted, stupid, ignorant attitude that I expect from Conservative Members as they know nothing about the subject.
What do Conservative Members know about living in rotten accommodation? How many Conservative Members are homeless? Most of them probably have two or three homes. We do not want lectures from a bunch of well-heeled Tory layabouts telling us what is endured by our constituents. If the hon. Member for Sutton wants to know why there is a housing crisis, I shall tell him.
In 1987–88, the London boroughs started building more than 13,000 new homes. In 1990, London boroughs started to build only 302 homes. The reason for the housing crisis is that the Government have ensured that the boroughs cannot provide accommodation for those who need it. It is absolutely disgraceful that in 1990 only 302 new homes were built—2 per cent. of the 1978 total. Between 1981–82 and 1989–90, the available permanent lettings to new tenants were reduced—a loss of 20,000 units.
One does not need a PhD in housing administration to know why there is a housing crisis in London. Some £8 billion is sitting in bank accounts, but no local authorities are allowed to use it to build new homes. The Government conned the House and the rest of the country by saying that if' local authorities sold houses, the money would be available to build new homes—lies. The authorities have not been allowed to use their own money to build homes for their own people.
The reason for the housing crisis sits on the Benches opposite—the nasty, ugly face of Toryism. Until we get rid of that, I am afraid there will be more and more people sleeping on the streets and in the doorways of London. That is a damned disgrace and so is the Minister.

Mr. John Marshall: We have heard the usual emotional speech of the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks). The real reason for the housing crisis in London is socialism. We have suffered from decades of socialist legislation stating that it was immoral to make money out of renting properties or offices. The reason for the surplus in office accommodation in London today is that office rents have never been controlled.
Why is there a shortage of accommodation to rent? The answer is that for years and years there were rent controls, and today many potential landlords fear that a future Labour Government would reintroduce rent controls. Investing in property is a long-term activity, and no one will invest in property while there is a threat of a future Labour Government reintroducing rent controls. The hon. Member for Newham, North-West would do his constituents' cause much good if he said that a future Labour Government would never reintroduce rent controls, as that is the fear.
The second fear of those who are considering renting out their property is that of long delays if the tenant refuses to leave at the end of the lease. Some constituents told me that they had let out their property to a tenant for a specific period. At the end of the lease, the tenant said that he would not go. It took my constituents five months to get the tenant out and regain control of their home. Such legal delays prevent some people from renting out their property.
The final reason for the shortage of property in London today and why a few hundred people are sleeping rough is that five Labour councils have 8,163 empty houses. Why is it that vacancies in the London borough of Barnet constitute 1·1 per cent. of its housing stock, but in the London borough of Brent, which is Labour controlled, the figure is 5 per cent. and in Hackney the figure is 4·8 per cent.—excluding the illegal tenancies that Hackney council has decided to allow? In Tower Hamlets the figure is 4·5 per cent., in Newham it is 3–8 per cent., in Southwark it is 3·6 per cent. and in Islington it is 2·6 per cent. Those councils are the cause of homelessness in London today.
The Labour party, Labour legislation and Labour threats are the cause of homelessness in London. It is not for the Labour party to talk about homelessness. Labour Members should come to the debate and admit that they are the cause of homelessness.

Mr. Cryer: Homelessness was lower under a Labour Government.

Mr. Marshall: As the hon. Gentleman who speaks from a sedentary position should know, the long-term effect of Labour policies has caused homelessness. There is no shortage of any other commodity in London. If we did not face the threat of rent controls from a future Labour Government, there would be no housing shortage in London tonight.

Mr. Clive Soley: In congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich (Mr. Raynsford) on initiating the debate, may I say that he has left me with the difficult task of trying to tell some Conservative Members in about seven minutes why there is such a housing crisis in this country. Two of the Conservative Members have less excuse for not knowing than the other two as they are older. I think that one of them was elected in 1987, and the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Riddick) was elected before that. Both have had the advantage of gaining a knowledge of the subject from documents placed before the House, whether by the Environment Select Committee or the Audit Commission, or by reading the Duke of Edinburgh report or questions that I and other hon. Members have tabled.
The two new Members do not have that advantage and can perhaps be forgiven for not knowing all the facts. I reiterate some of the facts that I put to the hon. Member for Colne Valley who tried to avoid them. In percentage terms the Government are the worst owners of empty properties in the country and it is not just the Ministry of Defence which is at fault. But even it has no excuse for keeping properties empty.
I asked a question just before Christmas and was told that 24 good, well-appointed, centrally heated houses in the middle of Swindon were to be sold after remaining empty for two years. I tabled the same question last week and was told that they are still empty. One in five police houses in London was empty just a few years ago hut. marvel of marvels, it is now down to about one in eight. It is disgraceful that houses are being sold when the market is flat. There are 36,000 Government-owned houses and if they are put on the market prices will be depressed. The ownership or management of the houses could be transferred to a local authority or a housing association. That would get people out of bed-and-breakfast accommodation and save taxpayers' money.
I intervened in the speech of the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Lady Olga Maitland) to say that local authorities could not continue the lease-back scheme because the Government and, sadly, the Minister restricted the extent to which that could be done. When councils such as Haringey and others reached the limit, they were stopped from continuing such schemes unless they were prepared to lose subsidy. It is costing a fortune to keep people in bed and breakfast so as to conform to that bizarre rule. We pay more to keep people in bed and breakfast than it would cost to keep them in the flat or house from which they have been evicted. That is because the Government will not introduce a mortgage rescue scheme of the type that I have been suggesting for more than two years.
We saw the repossession crisis coming. The Duke of Edinburgh report, the second Rowntree report, which is not a Labour party document by any stretch of the imagination, showed that since 1979 we have lost more


than 2 million rented sector homes. It was 1·9 million at the time the report was written. One million have been lost from the council sector and about 1 million from the private sector. When Labour left office, the private sector accounted for 14 per cent. of the rented market but it is now down to 7 per cent. That is the extent of the Government's failure.
The hon. Members for Hendon, South (Mr. Marshall) and for Colne Valley seem to blame the decline in the rented sector on the rent Acts. They should know, because they have heard me say it often enough, that the rented sector has suffered a straight line decline since the turn of the century, about 14 years before the introduction of any rent Act. When the rent Acts were abolished in 1957 the decline became faster, and speeded up when they were abolished again in 1980. When they were removed in Northern Ireland in 1957—and no party ever advocated putting them back—25 per cent. of the rented market there was private. It is now 5 per cent.
The rented sector has collapsed because.in this country, almost uniquely, there is an enormous subsidy for home ownership and no equivalent subsidy for renting. For landlords and tenants alike, it is not worth being in the rented sector. The Government's stance is hideously stupid. They should not worry too much about ownership. I am not too worried about who owns the rented sector, but I am worried about quality of management, affordability and tenants' rights. If the Government can get those three factors right, the local authority sector, the housing associations and the private sector can deliver good housing. The Government concentrate on attacking local authorities, and so ignore the problem that relates to the 2 million properties that I mentioned.
Another component of the problem is the cut in benefits for 16 and 18-year-olds. The hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam thinks that the problem is caused by the break up of families, but it is not because the rate of homelessness has accelerated faster than family break-ups which have slowed in recent years. The problem has everything to do with social security changes by the Prime Minister when he was a Social Security Minister and by the lack of rented housing.
It is a damning indictment of the Government that they do not have a housing policy. For the first time in 75 years homeless British children are begging on British streets. That is disgraceful and I never thought that I would live to see it in my country. There is no point in the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam saying that it is not the Government's fault. Is nothing the Government's fault —the slump, the health service, education, housing? The Government must be the most ineffectual of all time because apparently they have no effect on anything. They are so worried about winning a propaganda argument that they walk by the homeless thinking, "It is a great pity but we cannot do anything about it." The Government put those people there, it is their fault, and they could do something about it if they took on board the policies that we set out at the last general election. They must concentrate on quality, affordability and tenants rights, and not take them away, as compulsory competitive tendering does. I am in favour of compulsory competitive tendering if the tenants can make it compulsory, but I do not want the sort that the Government are introducing

because it is imposed by landlords on tenants and takes away their right to vote on it. Tenants' rights, quality of management, affordability and the building of houses could enable us to live in a civilised society again.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Tony Baldry): I congratulate the hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Raynsford) on introducing this debate, which takes place in national housing week. I always welcome an opportunity to expound the Government's policies on housing. Our clear housing strategy is to ensure that every family has a decent home. Of course, many people wish to make their own provision through owner-occupation. Many people aspire to owner-occupation and we have ensured that the number of people enjoying that has substantially increased. Of course, we are concerned when some people get into difficulties with their mortgage, but that must be kept in perspective.
The latest figures show that of the 10 million home owners with a mortgage, less than 0·4 per cent. were subject to repossession in the second half of last year. We are keen to ensure that mortgage lenders talk to people who may be in difficulty. The message that we need to get across is that people should not simply walk away from the problem but should get in touch with the mortgage lender. As a result of the difficulties that some borrowers have experienced, mortgage lenders are now beginning to appreciate that they will have to take arrears counselling much more seriously and introduce help schemes. They are doing that.
The initiatives taken by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor seem to have been judged by some people simply on the basis of mortgage-to-rent schemes. That is not the test. The test is how successful they have been in keeping people in their own homes. The mortgage lenders have committed £75 million to mortgage rescue. Only a small proportion of borrowers are in difficulty and a tiny minority face repossession. We must judge the initiatives on the fact that mortgage lenders are determined to do everything possible to ensure that people can stay in their own homes.
Of course, the Government recognise that, for some people, home ownership is not the way forward. There will always be a need for affordable social housing and we arc committed to making sure of investment in such housing. We have a clear commitment to invest £2 billion in the Housing Corporation each year for the next three years. That money will go from the corporation to housing associations. I barely heard Opposition Members mention housing associations. They clearly do not appreciate our intention that new affordable social housing should, by and large, be provided by the housing associations, which are increasing the number of housing units. They are able to do that because they arc increasingly successful in attracting private investment to add to that made available by the Treasury.
The hon. Member for Greenwich waved the Audit Commission report in support of his estimate of the number of houses that will be needed. In the second paragraph of its report, the Audit Commission stated:
Considerable uncertainty surrounds projections in this area.


We are determined to ensure that local authorities, as enablers, work in partnership with housing associations to provide the number of units which is needed.
Of course, the Audit Commission's report was aimed at developing local authority housing strategies. The report set out initiatives that local authorities can take in working in partnership with housing associations to provide more units. Indeed, if local authorities let their properties faster, reducing the length of time that properties are left empty between tenancies to six weeks in London and three weeks in the rest of the country.. which is perfectly possible, the result would he an extra 26,000 lettings in England in a year.

Mr. Raynsford: rose—

Mr. Baldry: No, I shall not give way because I have only one minute to respond to the debate. What we are—

In accordance with Mr. Speaker's ruling—[Official Report, 31 January 1983; Vol. 36, c. 19]—the debate was concluded.

Orders of the Day — Merchant Fleet

Mr. Mark Wolfson: I am very glad to have the opportunity to open the debate on the defence implications of the reduction—and I immediately emphasise, the continuing reduction—in Britain's merchant fleet. The issue is not new: it has been raised in questions and debates in the Chamber and in Committee many times in the past decade, and also before that. Many right hon. and hon. Members and many Members of another place have, so to speak, hoisted the red ensign to express their worry and to warn the nation and to alert the Government to an increasing weakness in our defence system. Until now, those warnings appear to have fallen on deaf ears.
Until 1966, Britain's merchant fleet was the largest in the world, but since the mid–1970s there has been a dramatic and, some of us would say, catastrophic reduction in the size of the United Kingdom fleet and in the number of United Kingdom seafarers. The United Kingdom-owned British islands fleet—vessels owned and registered in the United Kingdom, the Isle of Man and the Channel Isles—has declined from almost 9 per cent. of the world total in 1957 to just 1 per cent. in 1991. By 1990, British seafarers employed on United Kingdom ships numbered little more than a third of those in 1975.
Early this year, the Chamber of Shipping reported that, unless urgent action was taken by the Government to arrest the decline, the merchant fleet could well cease to exist in three years' time. Even in recent months, major British shipping companies such as Blue Star and Shell among others have re-flagged some 40 ships to tax havens and hired foreign crews in order to remain competitive.
A simple projection of the decline shows that the United Kingdom-registered fleet, currently some 3·7 million tonnes, will disappear by 1995. It is already one tenth of the size it was 10 years ago, on the eve of the Falklands war. That figure is very little appreciated by the nation at large. A further 11 million tonnes is British-owned but foreign-flagged, yet, on present trends, that could also go within the next 20 years. The experience of the Gulf war, when foreign ships were chartered to transport British forces, makes it crystal clear why shipowners and naval officers at the very highest levels argue that the British fleet is already dangerously small.
In their responses to the repeated reports of the Select Committee on Defence on this matter, the Government have said that they do not share the concern about foreign shipowners and crews being unwilling to sail into a war zone, and that insurance arrangements could encourage neutrals to trade. Is that a sound view, and on what information is it based?
Britain's defence strategy now emphasises the necessity to be able to deploy our land, sea and air forces in distant places. The Falklands and Gulf conflicts demonstrated that need, and the requirements for transportation by sea. The number of British seafarers is already inadequate to fulfil the likely sea transport requirement in the event of a future conflict without mobilisation and direction of labour but—more important, because I am looking forward—unless measures are taken now to stop the decline of the merchant fleet, even that very inadequate pool of personnel could disappear.
There are no longer sufficient numbers of militarily useful merchant ships on British registers to fulfil the national requirement for sealift in an emergency. Again, that already inadequate fleet is coming to the end of its life. They are the major problems—vessels and men—and the solution is to re-establish a healthy national shipping industry.
For years, the industry has suffered from unfair competition. The Government admit that, but argue that the way forward is to persuade our competitors to stop their tax subsidies and other benefits to their shipping industries, which will achieve a level playing field. Worryingly for the British shipping industry—and, I argue, worryingly for all of us and for our defence forces —there is no evidence that progress is being made in achieving a level playing field. I believe that the reverse is the case. Other countries continue to improve their Government's help for their shipping industries. If that is not the case, perhaps the House will hear my hon. Friend the Minister of State for Defence Procurement give examples to prove me wrong.
I now examine in more detail some of the points that I have already highlighted in support of my arguments. A clear trend can now be seen in British strategic orientation since the end of the cold war. The United Kingdom has redefined her defence policy away from a major commitment to land and air forces for the now non-existent central front towards flexible forces available for global contingencies in a range of conflicts, be they lateral or multilateral. Our leading role in the NATO Rapid Reaction Force clearly demonstrates that, as does the new orientation of the Royal Navy away from submarines towards carrier and amphibious task forces, which are capable of projecting our power on a global scale.
Britain has chosen to play its part in the maintenance of stability in Europe and beyond by having a real ability to employ and maintain mobile and flexible ground forces. The arguments for that were used all the time in debates and questions in the Chamber when justifying the changes being made in the armed services. We have an amphibious brigade that is based in the United Kingdom, an airborne brigade and two mechanised brigades. Based in mainland Europe, we have an armoured division and an air mobile brigade. Added to that, the Royal Air Force is in a position to provide a powerful striking force.
What we have not done is define the shipping that is necessary to deploy these forces. I argue that without that shipping being available immediately as required, those forces—they are purchased at great expense—may well not be able to operate where and when we immediately require them.
We must learn from recent experience. The Falklands war demonstrated what was needed to deploy two lightly equipped brigades to the other side of the world, far beyond the reach of an airlift. We still have a continuing commitment to defend the Falklands, and that cannot in the longer term be fulfilled without sea vessels. The fact that we decided to procure a strengthened amphibious squadron for the Royal Navy implies that maritime flexibilty is still a national priority. Unless we have the sealift to back it up, there is little point in building expensive and specialised amphibious shipping.
The Gulf deployment demonstrated another sort of United Kingdom global operation—the distant deployment of a reinforced armoured division and an RAF striking force. That involved 144 voyages—70 roll on/roll off, 67 general cargo and seven container. All but eight of the voyages involved foreign-flagged ships, of which 105 were chartered, along with five British vessels. Although we were able to charter ships, there were particular features of the Gulf war that enabled that to be done. It might not have been possible to do that in other circumstances.
What were the special features? There was a truly remarkable international consensus behind the operation. No Government had to exert pressure on their seamen to co-operate. Some countries saw involvement with merchant ships as one way of making their participation real. There was only a limited threat to the coalition shipping that was involved in the sealift. That might well not be the position next time, especially as submarines are proliferating in other defence forces.
Ships were readily available, because it was the time of a seasonal downturn in the shipping market. Even more important, there was time to look for suitable shipping on the international market. In addition, total shipping demand in 1990 was probably the minimum required for such a deployment. There was the availability of the Suez canal, good fuel supplies locally, an excellent port infrastructure that enabled us rapidly to unload, and over-flying rights and landing facilities for the Air Force. Without those factors, the number of ships needed and the tonnage required could have been very much higher.
Personnel is the other vital consideration. There are not enough ships available flying the red ensign, in its various forms, to be available to service future military deployments. Whether there would he sufficient reliable personnel to man those ships is also dubious. Since 1979 —for 12 years— the number of British nationals employed in the United Kingdom shipping industry has dropped by 60 per cent.
Some of the tonnage that was chartered by the Americans for the Gulf war had crew difficulties. That demonstrates that there is no certain substitute for a country's own nationals in a crisis or a war. In the Falkland crisis. British seamen had to replace personnel who were forbidden by their Governments or their unions to take part. Unless the disappearance of the mercantile marine is prevented, the current stock of seafarers will rapidly waste away. The average age of a merchant seaman officer is now more than 40. Indeed, the Department of Transport has said that it expects a serious shortfall of United Kingdom seafarers by the year 2000.
According to some authorities, we have about 166 ships that could be reliably used as a militarily useful fleet. Those figures are frighteningly small for a country that only 20 years ago had well over 2,000 ships on its registers. I contend that the assumptions of 20 years ago still hang around. There have been many warnings in this House and elsewhere about the problems that could be caused by the decline of the British merchant fleet—yet many people, for one reason or another, still assume that the ships are there. They are not.
What about any future crisis? Each war is unique. Modern defence policy, even more so than the defence policy of the cold war, is about preparing for the unexpected. Again, those were the arguments used for "Options for Change". If we assume that a deployment


were needed in future, comparable to that which went to the Gulf but in a less favourable geographical position, the demand for shipping could he very much higher. If an airlift were impossible. up to eight cruise liners or large ferries could be required to move personnel; some 60 ro-ro vessels, mostly cargo ships, would be needed to move the equipment; and about 125 general cargo ships would be needed to provide stores and ammunition. Perhaps 10 small and 30 medium-sized tankers would be required to supply fuel and water to the forces ashore and to the fleet. About three large container ships would be needed to transport aircraft.
Overall, that possible demand is far above the capacity of the current British registers—and it takes no account of attrition or action damage. We have no guarantee that repair facilities could act swiftly enough to make those ships available again during the crisis.
Then there is the age problem. The existing fleet is coming to the end of its active life. The average age of the United Kingdom-owned and registered fleet is now something over 18 years. If we take 20 years as an average for the normal life of a merchant ship, 1994 will see all five United Kingdom-owned and registered large break bulk cargo liners over age, along with 14 of the 24 large container ships and five of the seven passenger liners. Those are disturbing statistics. I come hack to my earlier point: the only way to overcome that problem is to rebuild a healthy merchant fleet on the basis of the present British shipping industry.
It is not just members of the Select Committee on Defence or Back Benchers who have been concerned about the issue. The Select Committee on Transport, in its report on the decline of the United Kingdom-registered fleet as long ago as 1987, identified various arguments for maintaining a United Kingdom-registered merchant fleet. Among those arguments was the danger in defence and economic terms of being totally dependent on others to move the United Kingdoms imports and exports and the further loss of international influence.
Surely it is not unrealistic to suggest that the defence dimension needs to be taken into account in Government policy towards our shipping industry. The French used that argument in the report on their contribution to the Gulf war. They said that the rapid and effective deployment of their merchant fleet and its ability to make a significant contribution to their forces in the Gulf war justified in their view the support that it was given on commercial grounds, but that in that case there was a justification for that support on defence grounds as well.
We know very well that the British shipping industry is asking for a beneficial tax regime of capital allowances for its ships and specific personal taxation benefits for British-based seamen. Those arguments have been deployed many times in the House, but they have not been acted upon by the Government. I believe that they should be, not only because of the commercial importance of the British merchant fleet, on which I have not focused tonight, hut, most importantly with regard to this debate and my hon. Friend's response tonight, in defence terms.
We want to hear the justification of the Ministry of Defence for its apparent complacency that all is well and that, if a future crisis arose, we would have the capability —not surely with British flagged vessels but by chartering foreign vessels—to meet our needs. I doubt that, and I look for reassurance tonight.

Mr. Peter Luff: It is a great privilege to follow such a comprehensive account of the problems caused by the decline in Britain's merchant fleet. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Mr. Wolfson) for his introduction to the debate.
Let me declare an interest. For nearly three years, I have had the privilege of advising the Chamber of Shipping—formerly the General Council of British Shipping—on matters relating to the debate. Some hon. Members expressed surprise at my intention to speak. feeling that a landlocked constituency such as Worcester hardly qualified for serious concern in connection with the future of the Merchant Navy. Let me give them a brief history lesson.
Not so long ago, Worcester was one of Britain's biggest ports. In the early days of the industrial revolution, it sent coal to Coalbrookdale and Ironbridge. I am reliably informed that the county of Hereford and Worcester also enjoys the highest per capita recruitment to the Royal Navy. Distinguished retired and serving Merchant Navy and Royal Navy officers and ratings live in my constituency. Moreover, as many people are in danger of forgetting, 95 per cent. of the country's trade goes by sea. The future of the Merchant Navy is therefore crucial to every hon. Member.
As I said, I have advised the Chamber of Shipping for some time, and during that period I have become convinced of the urgency of its case. There is a tragic irony in the decline so eloquently described by my hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks. Although it is easy to paint the picture of an industry in a terminal condition, many sectors of that industry are still the best in the world. Its ferries, cruise ships and container ships are the envy of the world, as are its officers and ratings and its management skills. If we throw away the shipping industry, we shall bear a heavy burden of guilt.
The debate is primarily about the defence implications of the decline in the merchant fleet. I find it extraordinary that we can be so complacent about the decline. The Merchant Navy provides a fourth arm of defence, at no cost to the country. Indeed, if the Government introduced the modest measures suggested by the shipping industry, they would probably find that a profit would be made as the fleet revived. That cannot be said of many elements of the defence budget.
I do not pretend to be a military analyst; I must look to others for advice on defence matters. In June 1991, Lord Fieldhouse observed:
The number of British-manned ships, sailing under the British flag and available for defence purposes, is now at a crucial level and may already be too few. We ignore this situation at our peril.
I believe that we are inoring precisely that. How many of our constituents really understand the impossibility of mounting another Falklands operation in 1992? My brother-in-law served in that operation, in a ship taken up from trade, and I know the crucial role played by such ships in its successful completion.
The Ministry of Defence often argues that the Gulf war proves that we no longer need a British flag fleet. My hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks explained eloquently how untrue that is. No serious risks were posed to ships that participated in that operation. As Lord Sterling—a


past president of the General Council of British Shipping —observed, as soon as a shot was fired, those chartered ships would have disappeared
like snowflakes on a summer day.
I do not want the debate to focus entirely on the defence implications of the decline. I  that, if we allow it to do so, my hon. Friend the Minister will give an eloquent account of why he does not share our sense of urgency, and the whole case for the shipping industry will go by default. We must remember that the industry brings at least four more clear and distinct benefits to our country. First, it contributes some £4 billion gross—£2·4 billion net—to our balance of payments. The loss of that contribution—a loss that must be very much on the cards if the rate of decline that we have seen during the past three or four years continues—would mean a halving of the country's invisible surplus, and I do not think that that could be tolerated.
Secondly, it is not widely appreciated by those who do not study such matters deeply that the maritime skills and expertise created by those who work in the industry bring enormous benefits to other aspects of the economy. The shipbuilding industry, the marine equipment industry and the ports and harbours cannot function without an adequate supply of retired officers returning to serve on shore and bringing their skills to bear in vital economic activities. The City of London's earnings depend more than is widely recognised on the continuing strength of our merchant fleet. Maritime banking and insurance, shipbroking, ship classification and legal services all depend on the credible position of this country in the world as a significant maritime nation.
As the chairman of one of the country's leading P and I clubs said to me recently, the red ensign fleet provides the ballast to all this country's activities. It is also appropriate, at a time of increasing environmental concern, to recognise the fuel efficiency of the merchant fleet. We hear a great deal from our right hon. and hon. Friends in government about the need to shift goods from road to rail, which I welcome, but we could make an even more significant contribution towards saving our valuable fossil fuels if we shifted more goods to seaborne transport, especially the coastal trade, which is by far the most fuel-efficient system of delivering goods in this country.
Almost exactly a year ago in the Chamber, in an attempt to still the vocal criticisms from hon. Members on both sides of the House—my hon. Friend the Member for Dover (Mr. Shaw) was one of them—the then Chief Secretary to the Treasury and the then Financial Secretary both promised that a statement would be made to the House on the defence needs of the shipping industry. A year later that statement has still not been forthcoming. I regard that as a significant breach of trust by the Government.
The British industry is lean and fit. It can take on the world, but only if the unfair barriers in other countries are met by similar action in this country. As my hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks said, it is simply not credible to expect other countries to dismantle the protection which they give to their domestic industries when they are doing so well from it.
In the last Session of Parliament, before I had the privilege of joining the House, early-day motion 500 attracted what was almost a record number of 353

signatures—the 10th highest ever number of signatures to such a motion, I believe. The motion set out, more briefly than I have done tonight, the basis of what I have been saying, and concluded that the House
calls on Her Majesty's Government to take immediate and positive action to first ensure that the British fleet is strengthened by appropriate stimulation of investment in modern tonnage and second encourage the recruitment, training and employment of British seafarers.
That motion flowed directly from a report by the Government's joint working party with the industry. It has given added strength and urgency to all that we have heard this evening.
I am concerned that the Government are playing a game of financial pass-the-parcel between the Ministry of Defence, the Department of Transport and the Treasury—and, to a lesser extent, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the Department of Trade and Industry.
Not so very long ago, the red duster ruled the world. It could so so again today, because of the inherent strength of the industry. The modest concessions on cabotage recently won by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport are welcome, but they are not an adequate response to the challenge that the industry faces. If the British merchant navy is to make the contribution that it can and should make to the defence of this country, something must be done. The industry has suggested capital allowances and national insurance and taxation reliefs for seafarers. One of those measures was before the House yesterday, but sadly it was not moved.
I understand that the Government do not like those proposals, but if they do not like them, let them suggest some proposals of their own. Something must be done, and soon, if the consequences that have been spelt out tonight are not to take place all too early.

Mr. Andrew Robathan: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr. Luff) on his passionate plea for the merchant marine, and also my hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoakes (Mr. Wolfson). I cannot, I fear, back up their detailed exposition of facts and figures, but I shall consider the subject in a historical perspective. We all know that those who ignore the lessons of history are destined to repeat the mistakes of the past.
Most if not all of us in the House were brought up on tales of brave sailors of the past—Hawkins, Raleigh and Drake. If we look back beyond the Gulf war and the Falklands, right back to the armada, we see that it was our sailors and our ships that protected our shores. In Napoleonic times, the battles of the Nile and of Trafalgar developed our naval strength in the protection of our own shores. Many members of another place if not of this House will remember how crucial was the battle of Jutland in the first world war.

Dr. John Reid: As was the battle of the Falklands.

Mr. Robathan: That is so. You, Mr. Deputy Speaker, will remember Dunkirk, when our merchant ships, small ships, and amateur sailors came to this country's defence. They saved the British Expeditionary Force, played a crucial part in raising morale, and ensured a successful outcome to the second world war. So, too, did the Atlantic convoys. I could mention many other examples.
Many people viewed the Suez crisis with some misgivings, but our Royal Navy and merchant ships lent their support in that episode, too. We heard from other hon. Members about the Falklands and the Gulf war. Less than two years ago, we relied on our merchant shipping and merchant sailors to support our operations overseas.
Times change. It may be argued that we no longer need such defence support. Who can predict the future and know what it will hold? Whose crystal ball could have predicted the anarchy in Yugoslavia given that, when Tito died, a marvellous future seemed to await the Balkans?
It will not have escaped the notice of the House—including those right hon. and hon. Members who usually sit on the Benches opposite, which are now empty—that we are an island. However many tunnels are built, we will always rely on shipping. As we withdraw from overseas territories such as Hong Kong, it is more important than ever to have home-based ability and experience in reserve. In future, we will not be able to call on our friends and dependencies overseas.
At army staff college I was taught about something called STUFT. As right hon. and hon. Members can imagine, that prompted many puns. It actually stands for shipping taken up from trade. The importance of STUFT was the great lesson of the Falklands. Shipping taken up from trade is no longer available because the British merchant marine has declined so much.
Positive action is required. I ask my hon. Friend the Minister to examine the issue closely. Financial incentives are needed to keep British shipping alive and vibrant. I will not dwell on the consequences for trade—and we will always be a trading nation—gross national product, and the employment of mariners if they cannot be provided.
My hon. Friend the Member for Worcester said that the House was promised a statement last year on the grave defence implications of the rundown in merchant shipping. That statement must be made. If we have no merchant fleet, we will weaken our defence. We will have no mariners, experience, tradition or shipping to call on. We cannot sit hack and let the merchant fleet perish by default. I ask my hon. Friend the Minister to produce a happy solution.

Mr. David Shaw: My hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Mr. Wolfson) did well to continue a Kent tradition, in securing a debate on shipping. Over the past 12 months, I have initiated two debates on the subject—as right hon. and hon. Members might expect from a Member of Parliament with considerable constituency interests in shipping, in terms of both jobs and a thriving ferry industry.
In my Adjournment debate earlier this year, I secured from my hon. Friend the Minister for Aviation and Shipping a promise to monitor carefully the subsidies and support given by other countries to their shipping. I was therefore disturbed to hear my hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks say that other countries are still increasing their support and subsidies, whereas we are not competitive in that regard.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr. Lull) said, I initiated a debate last year, to which a Treasury Minister replied. I was promised that the defence review would consider whether support should be provided under the Defence budget as approved by the

Treasury and how some assistance might be appropriate in that area. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will be able to deal with that specific issue later. The excellent speeches made by my new hon. Friends the Members for Worcester and for Blaby (Mr. Robathan) raised a number of issues which suggest that our shipping industry is not thriving as it should be and that we shall have to monitor it most carefully. The Government must take an active role in that respect.
The merchant fleet is terribly important to this country. Attention has been drawn to its military and civilian importance. The ferry industry in my constituency provides many thousands of jobs and I hope that it will continue to do that for many years to come. Many of the seamen who live in my constituency do not just work in the local ferry industry: they work on our deep sea ships and travel to ports around the country to engage in our shipping industry.
The decline in our merchant fleet has not simply occurred under this Government. It is important for the House to recognise that the decline started when Labour was in power in the mid-1970s. The British shipping industry was not helped by the subsidies made available by the then Labour Government to Polish ships. Nor was it helped by the support given by the Labour Government to the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development code which encouraged the developing countries to develop subsidised fleets of their own. That competition in the international shipping markets was severely subsidised and it caused considerable damage to our fleet.
The changes that the Government have made to capital allowances—ironically made by the predecessor of my hon. Friend the Member for Blaby—have gone too far. They have encouraged disinvestment in shipping to which my hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks referred earlier. Many ships are now transferring to foreign flags.
When my hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks referred to tax havens, I was reminded of my debate on that subject yesterday. I am concerned that there is a considerable transfer of assets away from the United Kingdom to tax havens in other countries which make it more favourable for ships to he held as assets registered in those countries. That is ludicrous. If, as I am sure my hon. Friend the Minister will claim when he replies, those ships would be available to the Royal Navy if they were required in times of war, they should be available as ships registered in the United Kingdom.
We should ensure that our tax regime is sufficiently favourable so that the tax havens do not receive the business. Why should lawyers and accountants in those countries form companies and earn the fees? The money should be brought back to this country, be that in respect of the advisory services for lawyers and accountants or through ship ownership.
It is in the interests of the Ministry of Defence to persuade the Treasury that the capital allowances regime is enouraging disinvestment, not investment. My hon. Friend the Minister represeents a constituency which has shipping interests and I know that he will endeavour, perhaps with a little difficulty, to reconcile his sympathies with his responsibilities. However, I am sure that we can rely on him for a forthright speech which will endeavour to point out that he will take forward the battle in Whitehall in the interests of shipping and in the interests of his constituents. I hope that, in due course, he will try to


tackle within Whitehall the issue of re-flagging to tax havens, as it must be stopped. I hope also that he will take a robust line in negotiations with the Treasury and point out that the money should not come out of the budget of the Ministry of Defence. It is an adjustment to capital allowances that has gone too far.
The capital allowances regime is unfavourable. There have been international reports, and I have previously referred to the report of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York into international allowances on assets. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will go into battle on capital allowances and tax matters. My hon. Friend is an expert on financial matters, having had a financially oriented career, among other skilful careers. I hope also that he will seek changes to the capital allowances regime which will allow our shipping industry to develop further and allow us to be comfortable and to sleep easy in our beds at night knowing that our defence is properly integrated not only in terms of military shipping, nuclear deterrence, or having many skilled people in our Army, as we saw in the Gulf war, but in terms of a properly managed defence capability that is backed up by a competent, able and well-invested merchant marine.

The Minister of State for Defence Procurement (Mr. Jonathan Aitken): The House has been privileged to hear four excellent speeches amounting to a useful and interesting debate. I particularly congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Mr. Wolfson) on the way in which he presented his case. He is a worthy champion of the red ensign, and he asked a number of questions to which I shall return. I was glad that he recognised the changing defence strategy of this country and our emphasis on mobile and flexible ground forces. He is right to ask whether we have the sea-lift required to move those forces in certain situations and whether we have defined the shipping required for such operations. I shall return to those questions, but I can tell him now that the answer is in the affirmative.
I also congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr. Lull) as a new, fluent and articulate voice on the subject of British shipping. I noticed in his presentation a slight difference of emphasis from that of my hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks, who, at one point, seemed almost to make our flesh creep by his descriptions of the terminal decline of British shipping, whereas my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester perked us up no end by his strong words about how British shipping is still the best in the world and the ballast to all our activities.
My hon. Friend the Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan), who brings to such debates his own distinguished military experience, was right to go back to the lessons of history. It certainly struck a chord with me when he rolled off his tongue great names such as Hawkins and Drake. Only yesterday, I was in Plymouth standing at the site where Drake had been when, just 304 years and 16 days ago, he launched the armada. It is impossible to be in such surroundings without wondering whether the lessons of history will teach us that we have to learn again from the lessons of the past and that one day again we will be launching major seafaring operations. The probability is

not high, but Defence Ministers have to plan for improbabilities. I was glad that my hon. Friend reminded us of the importance of not forgetting the lessons of history.
My hon. Friend the Member for Dover (Mr. Shaw) has long been a persistent and passionate crusader for Britain's seafarers and British shipping. In the previous election campaign, he was something of a heart of oak, politically. The local paper predicated that he would lose the seat of Dover with a swing of 23 per cent. to Labour, but the good arguments that he has put forward in the House on behalf of his constituents' interests won him the day and he came back. We are very glad to see him.

Dr. Reid: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way, as he knows that I am somewhat restricted by protocol because I shall speak in the European fighter aircraft debate. As he has paid such compliments to the erudite and informative speeches that have been made, and as he knows that, even in 1989, the Defence Select Committee was speaking of six successive years of decline in the merchant marine, he will know that the defence statistics that have just been revealed show evidence of the claim of a further 42 per cent. reduction in the number of United Kingdom-registered general cargo vessels between 1984 and now. Even more alarming, there has been a 40 per cent. reduction in the number of officers and ratings since the Falklands conflict in 1982.
Therefore, will the Minister respond to the erudite speeches made tonight by going to the heart of the problem and what Conservative Members called at one stage a breach of trust [strong words indeed from the Minister's own side? The Government said in the White Paper that they were conducting
a detailed review of the defence requirements for British merchant ships and seamen in times of crisis.
While we welcome that, what does the Minister mean by "in times of crisis"? In what strategic context is he considering the requirements? Is he contemplating changes in the legislation? Which organisations is he consulting as part of the review? In order that we do not have a further breach of trust next year, will he say when the review which has been announced again this year of the merchant marine will be completed?

Mr. Aitken: I am glad to respond to the hon. Member for Motherwell, North (Dr. Reid). I shall do so quickly and cover the detail later. First, the review is complete and I shall announce it tonight, although it will not necessarily gladden his heart. It was an interdepartmental Government review, but we took into account the representations that have been made by a range of organisations, including at various stages the Chamber of Shipping, the National Union of Marine, Aviation and Shipping Transport Officers and other such organisations. We also studied the Grove report.
I do not accept that there has been any breach of trust in the matter of the regrettable decline in the British merchant fleet. I shall turn to the specific statistics which are at the heart of the hon. Gentleman's case and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks in a moment. As my hon. Friend said, the subject is not new. My hon. Friend the Member for Dover reminded us that I, too, as a maritime Member represent a channel port. We have debated the decline in Britain's merchant fleet for all the time that I have been in Parliament.
Of course, the decline in our merchant fleet is a matter for general regret. To give some hard facts, the number of United Kingdom registered trading vessels of 500 gross registered tonnes—that is, of a size likely to be important in any defence calculation—has fallen from 1,614 in 1975 to 321 at the end of 1991. However, in the past few years the decline has slowed and in the four years since 1988 it has been at the rate of some 12 or 13 ships a year.
My hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks somewhat over-emphasised the nature of the decline when he said that the British merchant fleet would soon cease to exist if the rate of decline of the past four years continued. The cessation of existence of the merchant fleet is certainly a long way away.
The reasons for the decline are many and various. They include the changes in the pattern of international trade and the commercial pressures on British shipowners to sell vessels or transfer them to foreign registers. I take the sensible point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Dover about the need to crack down on tax havens which may encourage such transfers. Then there was the decision of the last Labour Government to begin phasing out capital allowances for ships. That perhaps started the process of decline.
The reasons are many and the solutions are also many. The Chamber of Shipping, in which my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester properly declared an interest, has been vociferous in suggesting solutions, as has the former chairman Lord Sterling, who has made many representations to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer and others.
The ingenious fiscal concessions that have been suggested are not within my responsibility. I hope that my hon. Friends will understand if I do not refer to them at any length other than to say that I will bring them to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer and others.
My hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks concentrated on the defence dimension of the issue, as I wish to do.

Mr. Wolfson: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way. On tax measures, I compared the position in the United Kingdom with those abroad and mentioned our lack of progress in achieving a level playing field. I hope that my hon. Friend will return to that subject, as he promised.

Mr. Aitken: I heard what my hon. Friend said, and I undertake to bring his remarks to the attention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. A Defence Minister cannot respond satisfactorily to such subjects as the level playing field on tax concessions. During the debate on the Finance Bill last night there was an opportunity to raise those matters, although sadly the amendment concerned was not moved. Debates such as those on the Finance Bill, when a Treasury Minister is responding, are the proper occasion for those subjects to be ventilated and questions answered, but I shall ensure that my hon. Friend's argument is considered by the Treasury.

Mr. David Shaw: May I support my hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Mr. Wolfson) on that issue, and declare an interest in what I am about to say, as a chartered accountant. The Treasury is well staffed with accountants and other supporting staff who are used to figure work. If the Ministry of Defence is taking that

argument and need on board, it might be appropriate for it to sort out the accounting arguments with its accountants, ready for the battle that needs to be fought in Whitehall.

Mr. Aitken: As my hon. Friend is an accountant, he knows more about battles between accountants than I do, but I am sure that they will, as usual, occupy the attention of the Treasury. The defence of the realm transcends accountancy. The question whether we have to spend public money, or in any way change our policy, because of the defence requirement is to be decided not through mere financial calculations, but through the deeper defence calculations.

Dr. Reid: Before the Minister gets into a labyrinth of tortuous arguments about accountancy, and without any sour grapes, as it is not often that a Minister gives me a straight answer to a question, he said that the review has been completed and that he is about to announce it. Does he think it appropriate that a review of the merchant marine, presumably undertaken with a view to reversing some of the disastrous trends of the past few years, should be suddenly announced at this time of night, at the tail end of a Session?

Mr. Aitken: I repeat that I do not think that the review is likely to gladden the hon. Gentleman's heart. Nevertheless, we shall announce our conclusions at the earliest possible opportunity. It has literally just been completed. No one can he accused of trying to smuggle something under the carpet if a Minister responds to a debate and answers the questions that have been asked. There will be plenty of other opportunities to ask questions, including at Question Time, but I can assure the hon. Gentleman that we are not engaged on some nocturnal concealment exercise—far from it—and I shall face up to the announcement of the review,. although it may be found disappointing.

Mr. Bryan Davies: Is the Minister confirming that the review will be the subject of a statement to the House in the near future, or simply that it will be made public at some stage?

Mr. Aitken: Towards the end of my speech I shall announce the results of the review. As I said earlier, the frissons of excitement that seem to be building up may not be entirely justified when the announcement is made.
I was about to turn to the historical theme, the necessity for preparedness, touched on by my hon. Friend the Member for Blaby. In recent history, there has rarely been a time when the strategic uncertainties of a changing world, and the changing threats that come with it, have posed such difficult challenges and questions to defence planners and Ministers.
It remains a near certainty that in times of tension or war the United Kingdom will need a significant number of merchant ships. The hon. Member for Motherwell, North tried to bowl me what he thought was a clever question about the definition of a time of crisis. I can only say that a time of crisis is when the House of Commons has the kind of debates and exchanges that took place at the time of the Falklands or the Gulf war, which suggest that we are in an hour of national crisis. Parliamentary indicators are as good a signpost of crisis as any.
It is a virtual certainty that in such times the United Kingdom will need a significant number of merchant ships


for European and out-of-area reinforcement. The merchant ships will also be required to support naval operations. It is possible that with lower force numbers, longer warning times, larger aircraft and newer methods of transportation, such as the channel tunnel of which my hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks was once such an ardent enthusiast, we may have a more flexible task when providing such reinforcement and support. Nevertheless, the importance of merchant shipping for Britain's defences in an emergency remains pivotal. There is little doubt, therefore, that the theme of this debate is correct: a healthy British merchant shipping industry may have to provide a vital lifeline and supply line to British forces in an hour of peril.
In an ideal world we should like to have a large pool of British-flagged, British-crewed vessels to choose from in time of war or crisis. Unfortunately, we do not live in an ideal world when it comes to the health of the British merchant fleet. We share the concern of my hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks at the decline in the number of British-registered vessels—I have already said that it is down to 321 vessels of 500 tonnes or above. However, we do not believe that the situation is so critical that we could not manage to carry out the type of crisis resupply and reinforcement task that faced us at the time of the recent Gulf war or at the time of the Falklands invasion—tight and more difficult though that task might be.
May I remind the House of what happened at the time of the Falklands crisis and of Operation Granby for the Gulf? In Operation Granby 109 foreign-flagged vessels and five United Kingdom vessels were engaged in the reinforcement and movement of men and equipment to the Gulf. On the return phase, 81 foreign vessels and three United Kingdom-flagged vessels were chartered. The cost of the operation was about £140 million.
We had no difficulty in obtaining all the British forces shipping requirements on the open market. Virtually all the movement of men was done by air, hut the equipment was largely moved at sea. Although some might say that it was disappointing that the United Kingdom-registered vessels represented a comparatively small percentage of the operation, that was a voluntary decision on the part of the British shipping industry. Lord Sterling wrote to The Times during Operation Granby to say that the British shipping industry was then extremely busy with existing contracts and did not necessarily wish to hid for the contracts that were on offer to the shipping industries of the world. We were able to undertake Operation Granby successfully.
At the time of the Falklands crisis 52 merchant ships were used, the majority of them British. Half of them were requisitioned, half chartered.

Dr. Reid: I am sory to intervene again, but I did not realise that such a substantial response would be made tonight.
Does the Minister realise that what he has said about Operation Granby is at total odds with the Select Committee on Defence analysis, on which it spent a great deal of time? It concluded that there was
an almost total absence of UK shipping from the lists of ships providing the sealift for Granby … The significance of the degree of dependence displayed must be addressed by MOD in its analysis of the lessons of Granby.

Is the Minister saying that the Select Committee was totally wrong and that its analysis has been either ignored or rejected after investigation under the MOD review? Can he confirm that MOD police are now investigating allegations of fraud during the chartering operation for Granby? I am not asking for details, but can he confirm that an investigation of fraud during the chartering contracts process is under way?

Mr. Aitken: The answer to the hon. Gentleman's last point is that I can confirm that the Ministry of Defence police fraud squad is conducting investigations into the chartering of some shipping for the Ministry of Defence during the Gulf crisis. It is not our practice to comment on Ministry of Defence police investigations while they are under way, and the hon. Gentleman will appreciate that.
The answer to the hon. Gentleman's first point is that the Select Committee was factually correct, and in my factual analysis I confirmed that. There is a difference of opinion between the Government and the Select Committee in that we believe that Granby was a successful operation, that it offered charters to British shipping and that while those offers were perhaps not taken up as widely as we would have hoped, our job was to make sure that Operation Granby was a success. From the point of view of shipping, it was a success. We believe it indicated that a British defence movement on that scale is entitled to go and can successfully go out on to the open market to fulfil Britain's defence needs.

Mr. Luff: I am sure that the Minister is not suggesting that the shipping industry in some sense turned its back on Operation Granby. Will he join me in congratulating the British shipping industry on the efficiency with which it is run, which meant that it did not have ships available at the drop of a hat? Will he learn the lesson from that and accept that if we could encourage the industry to grow, more ships would be available for such an operation?

Mr. Aitken: My hon. Friend makes a sound point. The British shipping industry was at that time enjoying a high level of success and efficiency and, reasonably enough, did not want to disturb its existing charter arrangements. The wider interests of British shipping to which he referred earlier are well taken.
The Falklands operation is the kernel of the argument because it was a British-only operation and the question is whether we could do it again if we were called on to do so. That is extremely unlikely, particularly as we have built a new runway in the Falklands and installed there a formidable garrison.
Without being complacent. the answer is that we could. Fifty or so similar ships could still be requisitioned or chartered from the United Kingdom shipping register or from the British dependent territories shipping register. Although it would be tight in some categories, the answer, without being complacent. is that we could do it again.

Mr. Robathan: I seem to remember that during the Falklands operation the Indian Government objected to some of its nationals on British ships being sent to the Falklands.

Mr. Aitken: My hon. Friend is correct, and I shall come to the subject of seafarers, which is different, though important, in relation to the subject of ships, with which I have been dealing so far.
Even though there are fewer British flag vessels from which to choose, it can be claimed, without complacency, that we should be able to mount operations similar to Granby or the Falklands. There are good grounds for believing that by a combination of chartering foreign vessels on the open market and chartering or, in some cases, requisitioning them, British ships could meet the expected requirements of a crisis or wartime situation, even in the worst and surely unlikely scenario that we were acting alone, without allies or friends.

Mr. Wolfson: Is it not a fact that a key difference between the Falklands operation and the Gulf was the need to requisition ships, as opposed to being able to charter on the open market? In addition, there was danger to shipping—as was seen in what happened in terms of sinkings—in relation to civilian ships. The need to requisition must be a high focus for the Ministry of Defence.

Mr. Aitken: My hon. Friend is right. There are circumstances of greater danger than Operation Granby. There were dangers—which have been somewhat minimised in this debate—to shipping at the Lime of Operation Granby and we must, and do, focus on the possibility of requisitioning British ships, not only from the United Kingdom register, as we are entitled to do, but from the United Kingdom dependent territories register. The figure given earlier of only 166 ships being suitable was not correct when one takes into account, for example, the ships on the Bermuda register. There are many BP tankers and other vessels on that. We have carefully considered the requisitioning possibilities.
I said that I would mention the review that we have been conducting internally—as promised—between Government Departments on the defence requirement for merchant ships in times of crisis. It follows from the argument that I have been advancing that the review concluded that there was no need for special measures for the British shipping industry now. However, there may be a need to do something more about crewing to ensure an adequate supply of British seafarers, and that aspect will be the subject of further study. I shall tell the House something of our thinking and past practices on that feature.
Given the importance of merchant shipping, the Government have introduced a number of measures to help the industry and ensure the availability of vessels and crews for national needs. Those include financial assistance for the training of recruits under the Government's assistance for training scheme—the GAFT scheme—which commenced in 1988. Before the introduction of that scheme, the annual recruitment of cadets had fallen to a low of 162. By the end of the 1988–89 period, the figure had risen to 289, and it reached 521 at the end of 1990. Government assistance has also been made available for the travel expenses of deep-sea crews for the repatriation of seafarers, and there has been a relaxation of foreign earnings deduction rules to allow British seafarers to spend more time in the United Kingdom. In addition, a Merchant Navy Reserve was established in May 1989 to provide a pool of British seafarers who could be called upon in times of national emergency to man merchant vessels. That reserve establishment was a direct

consequence of some of the problems that arose in the Falklands war, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Blaby referred.
The purpose of the establishment is to cover two perceived shortfalls in manpower. First, it replaces foreign nationals serving in United Kingdom flagships when, in time of crisis or war, they are deemed to be a security risk, or when they express a desire to leave the ship or are ordered to leave by their Government. I think that that is what happened in the Indian shipping case to which my hon. Friend referred. Its second purpose is to man British-owned but foreign-flagged vessels returning to the United Kingdom flag in time of tension or war as a result of emergency legislation. In that case, it may be necessary to provide full crews.
Recruiting for the Merchant Navy Reserve got off to a slow start, but a campaign in major British ports at the beginning of 1992 increased the numbers in the reserve to more than 650. The Department of Transport, which administers the scheme, hopes to build up the reserve's strength to more than 1,000 by 1993, and is aiming for a final establishment of about 2,000.
The Government also provide war risks insurance to indemnify shipowners against loss: and there are agreements with open registry states. In that connection. we have already signed agreements with Liberia. Bahamas, and Vanuatu, where there are approximately 100 British-controlled ships registered. That would mean that in times of crisis it would be possible to gain access to those vessels with the consent of the countries of registration. Furthermore, in the unlikely event of a full-scale war involving the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation, we would have access to the shipping resources of our NATO allies.
The Government also participated in a joint working party with the British shipping industry. The recommendations of the working party included the introduction of more flexibility into the rules governing the nationality of officers on British ships. The main justification for those rules is one of defence, and we have made major concessions at the request of the industry. The Department of Transport has recently issued a consultative document recommending that the existing nationality conditions for United Kingdom-registered merchant vessels, covering the ship's master, first officer and chief engineer, be relaxed to require that only either the master or the first officer be British. In the case of those vessels of strategic importance, the master would still be British.
I hope that the House will accept from the range of measures and practices that I have outlined that some progress has been made on the availability of British seafarers in time of war for ships that have to go to an area of danger.
I realise that the announcement of the review that I have made will not be greeted with cheering and will not gladden the hearts of my hon. Friends who have so properly and ably raised matters of concern tonight. I hope that they will accept that the argument about the defence dimension in Britain's merchant shipping is really about defence priorities and defence spending priorities. There are competing requirements for defence funds, and our review of the defence requirements for merchant shipping in times of crisis shows that at this juncture we cannot allocate defence funds in support of the British shipping industry. I am sorry to be the bearer of those bad


tidings, but I hope that it is some reassurance to know that we have taken careful measures to ensure an adequate supply of British seafarers in times of crisis.
There is a vital role for merchant shipping in an emergency and we continue to keep a close watch on the state of the industry and the trends to ensure that our plans are capable of being met. We carefully review shipping requirements and our latest review shows that there is no need at the moment for any special measure. I assure the House that we continue to give the defence needs of merchant shipping a high priority, and I hope that after this useful debate there is still no doubt about our commitment to making sure that this need will continue to be met.

Orders of the Day — Student Hardship

Mr. Bryan Davies: I am grateful for this opportunity to debate student hardship, which causes a great deal of concern not only to me but to many of my hon. Friends. Representations from students show the difficult circumstances in which they now find themelves, and those difficulties are the direct result of a series of disastrous Government decisions in recent years on student finance.
I am glad to see an Education Minister in his place. It is a long time since we had an opportunity to debate this issue. When it was last debated in November, the Government, by some strange quirk, decided to field a Social Security Minister who spent a great deal of time denying her Department's responsibility for student problems. I am glad that the winding-up speech will be delivered by a Minister who accepts responsibility for the welfare of students. However, some contributions should also be made by the Department of Social Security.
Over the past few years, the Government have followed the principle that gave birth to one of our more famous supermarkets—"stack 'em high and sell 'em cheap". The principle followed by the Government in higher education —if principle is not too dignified a term—is pack 'em in and slash their cost. The deliberate impoverishment of students has been part of Government policy in the welcome move towards increasing the number of people in higher education. However, no policy should make life increasingly difficult for those who participate in higher education, and Government policies have had extremely deleterious consequences.
What other group of people has been told that basic income should be frozen at 1990 levels? The grant component of higher education support for students is frozen at precisely that point. What other group of people would be told, "We know that this may prove to be inadequate, but we have a battle against inflation"? Britain still has higher inflation than many other countries in western Europe, and over the past three years there has certainly been a decline in the purchasing power of the student's pound. What other group of people would be told to take out loans and become dependent on finance that would have to be paid back with interest in the future? Such policies are implemented by a Government who bleat about the dependency culture even though they are deliberately inculcating exactly that dependency among a large section of our young people. It is detrimental for students to be placed in such an invidious position.
The Minister has written on several occasions—certainly once in response to hon. Members who raised the issue with him previously—that he believes that it is important that students are gaining greater independence and economic awareness. He believes that that is happening. Greater independence looks like a sick joke when students are being plunged into debt. I do not doubt that they are gaining greater economic awareness. Many are being taught some fairly harsh economic lessons by the Government: they are being taught about poverty, dependence on loans and how helpful it would be if one had a relatively prosperous father or mother.
I have not the slightest doubt that when Tory Members of Parliament send their offspring into higher education, in many cases after having spent thousands of pounds on


secondary education in public schools, thereby increasing their children's chances of going into higher education, they bail out their offspring when they say that the level of parental contribution, assessed against the grant, is too low to live on. It is clear from all quarters that the support is inadequate.
Whereas it may be possible for members of the Conservative party, Tory Members of Parliament and some sections of the community to bail out their children and ensure that students get through this period without total impoverishment, that option is not open to large numbers of my constituents who have no spare resources to supplement the inadequate student grant.

Mr. Graham Riddick: Which countries in the western world do not have a loan system to help towards the maintenance of students?

Mr. Davies: I think that the hon. Gentleman will recognise that we managed to run a higher education system for a very long time on the basis of respect for students and the provision of the resources necessary to give them adequate grants. I do not remember the Conservative party telling the nation that it would set out gratuitously and deliberately to make life more difficult for students seeking to enter higher education.

Mr. Riddick: Will the hon. Gentleman please answer my question?

Mr. Davies: The question is not apposite. Many features of our higher education system compare very favourably with those of other countries. For example, our success rate at graduate level is the envy of many countries, and there is a correlation between support for students and success rates. if the hon. Gentleman is suggesting that it would be more appropriate for us to adopt other countries' systems of financial support for students, he may also find that he is embracing the notion that more of our students should fail their courses, in line with other countries. That is not a particularly progressive or constructive way to view young people's education.
The Minister must face the problem that not only is the student grant inadequate, leading to dependence on loans, but all other means of supplementing student finances are effectively blocked. The Government have made it abundantly clear that there is to be no form of benefit support for students. That is a substantial loss. A study carried out by the students union of the university of Manchester has demonstrated that, for the average student in Manchester, housing costs have increased from between 45 and 50 per cent. of his income up to 71 per cent. That is a considerable slice of a student's income. It is a fact that students can no longer apply for housing benefit. The result—I am sure that the Government did not wish this upon the students—is that students are so impoverished that their standard of living is below the level of unemployed young people between the ages of 18 and 24. We are asking the young unemployed, who have an extremely difficult time, to exist on about £60 a week if they have access to housing benefit, but student support is only just over £50 a week.
I wonder whether Conservative Members have considered the privations that students face. I know that some people will say, "Students have always been poor. Our own generation at university was scarcely well-off, but it survived". The majority of students of my generation

survived because we were able to obtain vacation jobs. We could not make our grants last throughout a full year unless we were able to have some earning powers during at least the long vacation.

Mr. Peter Thurnham: What was wrong with that?

Mr. Davies: Many of us had substantial earning power over the Christmas period because of the institution of the Christmas post.
The hon. Gentleman asked what was wrong with working during the long vacation. I do not think that anything is wrong with that, provided that students have access to work. The bald fact is, however, that students cannot obtain jobs during vacations. It is not possible in circumstances—

Mr. Thurnham: The hon. Gentleman is talking rubbish. He has said that Tory Members bail out their children. Perhaps he will name the Tory Members whom he has in mind. I have four children, all of whom managed to get jobs and work their way through in the way that he said he did. What is wrong with that? I do not understand why the hon. Gentleman thinks that it cannot be done now. The fact is that it can be done.

Mr. Davies: If the hon. Gentleman's children were able to obtain vacation jobs, that may reflect the rather more privileged position that they enjoy compared with that which faces many of the children from my constituency. There are unemployment rates of 16 per cent. in Oldham. In Manchester, a few road-sweeping jobs attracted more than 1,000 applicants. Many were graduates who had recently qualified at university. Students do not have much hope of easily finding casual vacation jobs that will enable them to supplement their income. That is a measure of the impossible situation that students face.

Mr. Peter L. Pike: At one time, as my hon. Friend says, students were able to get jobs in various industries and in many other sectors. During the recession, those jobs are no longer available. As a result of the squeeze, local government—which used to make many jobs available to students during college vacations—is no longer able to offer vacation work. It does not have the necessary finance available to it.

Mr. Davies: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his contribution. It reflects the grim situation that we all face. As unemployment moves inexorably towards 3 million, there are no jobs for students to take up.
Access funds are another aspect of support that the Government suggest for students, but the higher education institutions have always said that they provide inadequate support. It was predicted that the £25·8 million voted last year would be speedily exhausted because of the real hardship claims by students. During the past two weeks, the Labour party has carried out a survey of access funds, and almost 50 per cent. of the institutions surveyed have already exhausted their full entitlement. That means that students who still have almost three months to go before their next grant cheque and have no access to benefits and, in many cases, no possibility of supplementing their grants with jobs will find that when they apply to their institutions for help they will receive only the bleakest of answers.
Problems also confront students at the end of their courses. Unemployment is reflected in the extent to which this year's recruitment fairs have been operating at only half the level of previous years. Major companies have virtually abandoned graduate recruitment. After just three or four years at college, students are saddled with debts of more than £1,000. They cannot fulfil the Government's rosy view of how they can solve their debt problems, which is to get a job to repay those debts in a short period. For large numbers of students, graduate unemployment means no jobs and substantial debts once they have successfully graduated.
What does all that mean for education? I ask the Minister to reflect on just what perspective he believes the next generation takes of higher education in those circumstances. The moral must be clear, especially for the children of low-income families. Faced with the prospect of debt and of extreme difficulty in sustaining themselves through their higher education courses, children will decide that if there is a job available when they leave school, however poorly paid and low in prospects, it would be better to take that job than to follow the somewhat hazardous prospects of higher education. The Government's oft-declared objective, to increase higher education participation by children from lower-income groups and reduce the extent to which it is enjoyed predominantly by children from middle class homes, will suffer while student support operates at such an inadequate level.
If there is that long-awaited recovery in the economy and the beginnings of some green shoots—although most of us have failed to see them, despite the many Government promises—and if a few jobs are created, young people will seize those jobs rather than put themselves through three or four years of higher education, with all the difficulties that they face and limited prospects when they have graduated.
On the evidence of the past two years of increasing difficulties for students, I appeal to the Government to rethink the basis of student support. If they do not, students and staff of the battered higher education section of our education system, which has been quiescent in recent years—perhaps previously hoping that some of its difficulties would be overcome by a change of Government at the last election but now coming to terms with the fact that this Administration will be in power for at least the next three to four years—will press their grievances, and if they are not met students are bound to advocate their cause. That, as we know from the past, has often led to considerable disruption in higher education, to the cost of students, the education system and, ultimately, the nation.
If students are impoverished, if they receive the harsh lesson from the Government that reason will not prevail, the Government will have only themselves to blame for the reaction that will undoubtedly result.

Mr. Peter L. Pike: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, Central and Royton (Mr. Davies) on applying for a debate on such an important subject. I speak as the parent of a daughter who has just

completed her second year at Chester college. Therefore, I have a vested interest—an expensive one—in the cost of keeping my daughter at college.
As my hon. Friend said, the problem is that for the younger generation of people we have made going to college or university dependent on their parents being both willing and able to contribute to their further education. I stress that they must be both willing and able, because the one is not satisfactory without the other. The situation is extremely difficult.
I spoke against student loans on several occasions at the time of their introduction. The concept is totally wrong, and the sooner we revert to the grant system the better. Loans are wrong, because to allow people in education to acquire a debt is nonsense. I know that the loans are effectively zero-rated, and that if earnings are below a particular level in subsequent years, the loan does not have to be repaid; but the simple fact is that the loan is seen as a debt with which students are saddled, and that is nonsense. Moreover, it would be a rare student who did not build up a debt in addition to the student loan resulting in two debts on completion of his or her education.
The statistics clearly show that those who have had the advantage of a university or college education earn more in later life than those who have not had such an advantage. Therefore, they will pay back not only their tuition fees but the whole cost of their education in the higher taxes that they rightly pay in a fair society on their higher income. That is fair, and that is the system that we should have. Student loans should clearly be scrapped, and the sooner we scrap them the better. I hope that, even at this late stage, the Government will admit that they have got it wrong and will not allow the system to continue for a third year.
The hon. Member for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Thurnham), who has now left the Chamber, said that it was easy for students to find jobs in the vacations. If the hon. Gentleman believes that, he does not live in the real world. In 1992, with the country in the longest and deepest recession that it has known since the war, it simply is not possible for students to find vacation jobs in most parts of the country. They cannot find work in factories, with local authorities or even at McDonalds or Wimpy bars because of the recession that the Government have created; moreover, they are not eligible for benefits, which is outrageous.
When I was on Burnley council, we used to employ students in a number of jobs during the vacations. Over the years, however, those jobs had to go as the Government squeezed local authorities' budgets and hammered their spending. Nowadays, authorities are rarely able to take on any temporary labour.
Housing costs and benefits are also an increasing problem. The Government must deal with the accommodation issue in any event. Some of the student accommodation that I have seen—not my daughter's, but that of other students—is of a very low standard. Much more properly run, properly maintained halls of residence are needed. Private sector rented accommodation should be properly supervised as well, as much of it is not only of a poor standard but increasingly expensive. Local environmental officers have not sufficient powers to supervise such properties: they need greater powers, the standards must be raised, and rents must be better controlled to provide value for money.
My hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, Central and Royton mentioned the access funds. In this instance, access is certainly not a flexible friend; for most people, the funds are a joke. Either they arc spread too thin, or the money has gone. Most student unions consider them an insult.
If we are to compete in the world, emerge from recession and keep the economy permanently out of deficit and financial difficulties, investment in education and training is crucial. It was one of the key issues at the time of the election; sadly, the people made the mistake of failing to recognise how different Labour's policy was. They did not realise that we considered investment in all levels of education and training to be vital.
Higher education is currently the subject of debate. The problems created by the Government will bar more and more people from continuing their education. The Minister will say that statistics show a higher percentage of people to be doing so, but he should bear in mind the number who are dropping out because financial pressures prevent them from concentrating fully on their studies and taking all their opportunities. The Minister and the Government must understand that, if they do not put that right, think again and change their policy, it will be the Government and the country which loses out. Not only young people in education but the nation as a whole will suffer, and will pay the price for this short-sighted folly and the hardship which will prove detrimental to this country's education and training opportunities.
The need is crucial and the case made so well by my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, Central and Royton is overwhelming. The Government must think again, change their policies and give our people a better opportunity to go on to higher education.

Mr. Andrew Smith: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, Central and Royton (Mr. Davies) on initiating the debate and on the powerful case that he has made for his constituents and for students in general. I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike) for the strength of his contribution. They both showed how great is the Labour party's concern about this important issue.
As this is my first opportunity to do so, I welcome the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Further and Higher Education to his post. Because of his distinguished interest in the social sciences, it will not have escaped his attention that there were above average swings to the Labour party in the seats where higher education is especially important. We can hope only that the lesson that he learns from that fact is, as my hon. Friend the Member for Burnley explained, the need to change Government policy rather than to punish students and academics further for their dissidence, as some of his hon. Friends would like him to.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, Central and Royton said, the debate is timely to the point of urgency. The prospect facing tens of thousands of students this summer is grim. My hon. Friend rightly referred to the series of disastrous decisions on student support made in recent years. First, there are the cuts in the value of grants. Since their cash value was frozen two years ago they have been reduced by the rate of inflation. Then there was the introduction of student loans, the ending of entitlement to

income support and housing benefit, and the cynical abolition of the vacation hardship allowance, combined with the difficulties which students have in finding vacation jobs, especially now in the depths of recession. There are also escalating rents, the pressure on institutions' libraries and the superinflationary rise in the cost of books. Those factors have all conspired to condemn students without other means of support to spiralling debt and the prospect of a summer of poverty.

Mr. Pike: Is not another of those problems the lack of access to computers? Many students have to pay for computer facilities because in many places insufficient facilities are available for all the students.

Mr. Smith: My hon. Friend is right. Of course we welcome the increase in the numbers of students in our educational institutions, but equally we deplore the fact that resources have not kept pace with that increase so that, as my hon. Friend says, facilities of all kinds, including essential equipment such as computers, come under enormous pressure. When students have to buy equipment themselves, that imposes a financial penalty which many of them cannot bear.
Our charge against the Government is that, faced with the prospect of deepening student hardship, they offer students and their parents nothing but complacency, incompetence and indifference. Clearly the Government have learnt nothing from the experience of last summer, when the situation was so serious that the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux dealt with so many cases that it was impelled to draw up a special report, entitled "Diminishing Options". It concludes:
On the basis of cases reported by Citizens Advice Bureaux, the basic student grants and loan alone are not providing an adequate income for many students and they are suffering considerable distress as a result. One of the groups hardest hit are students whose parents are on low incomes and also mature students who are fully independent and who have their own financial commitments. Some are considering giving up their courses, and there is a real danger that access to higher education for poorer people will be reduced.
That is backed by the requests for help received by the National Union of Students and the higher education institutions themselves, and the volume of mail on the subject that Members of Parliament receive.
The Government's response is to deny hardship—typified by the former Secretary of State for Education in his letter to Members of Parliament last year, and by his remark in the House that
I do not accept that the 'scores' of cases stand up to examination."—[Official Report, 12 November 1991; Vol. 198, c. 885.]
The Government also point to access funds as a source of help—and I dare say that we will hear more of the same tonight.
If the Government seriously expect students, their parents, and the rest of us to treat their claims with anything but contempt, they would have made an objective study of the extent of student hardship, and monitored the use of access funds. They have done neither.
On 8 June, I asked the Minister when he would undertake a survey of students' income and expenditure. He replied only that the Government would do so "as and when appropriate." On 25 June, I asked the Minister what representations he had received on the prospect of student hardship this summer, to which he gave no answer, and whether he intended to increase the availability of access funds. He replied:


We believe that the sums made available to the funds should be sufficient for their purpose, if properly targeted." —[Official Report, 25 June 1992; Vol. 210, c. 273.]
On 2 July, I asked the Minister how many institutions had already spent their access funds. He answered:
The information is not kept centrally."—[Official Report. 2 July 1992; Vol. 210, c. 663.]
He should certainly consider having it centrally recorded.
On 3 July, I asked what assessment the Government had made of the need for additional financial support for students this summer. The Minister referred to his previous answer, and added:
We do not consider that additional provision is required."—[Official Report, 3 July 1992; Vol. 210, c. 713.]
The Government have learnt nothing from last year and have failed to assess student need for this year. They will not make additional student support available, and do not know how access funds are being spent. More comprehensive evidence that the Government could not care less about what is happening to students would be difficult to imagine.
The ultimate cynicism is that last summer institutions were allowed to bring forward 10 per cent. of access fund expenditure to the current academic year. What is the difference between last summer and this? None—except that last summer was the last one before a general election, and this summer is the one following it.
The Labour party is so concerned that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, Central and Royton said, we made our own survey of access funds depletion. Of a sample of 27 higher education institutions, just under half have already used all their current allocation. Nearly two thirds of them have less than £1,500 to see them and their students through the summer.
One institution attempted to bring forward funds from next year, and several more hope that they will be able to use some of next year's allocation in advance. It is plain for all to see that there will be a real crisis of student hardship this summer. It will be especially acute for students who are on low incomes, for older students and for those whose institutions have already run out of access funds. A Government who took their responsibilities to students seriously would act now. They would carry out their own immediate check on depletion of access funds, increase the size of those funds and replace the money that was pre-empted last year.
I ask the Minister to recognise at last the seriousness and urgency of the situation and to take those steps now to avert a summer of student hardship. I urge him also to introduce measures to restore vacation hardship allowance and to introduce a targeted system of housing benefit for students. That is what Labour pledged at the general election. Nothing less will do if we are to stop the crisis of student hardship becoming an ever-worsening annual event to the enormous cost of countless individuals and to the detriment of opportunities in higher education.
The Government are doing a grave disservice to the students of this country and to their hard-pressed parents. It is time that they dumped their failed policies on student support, addressed the crisis that is staring us all in the face and took the action that the Labour party has been urging on them for some time.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Further and Higher Education (Mr. Nigel Forman): I congratulate the hon. Member for Oldham, Central and Royton (Mr. Davies) on his success in the ballot for the debate. It was welcome to hear the views of the hon. Members for Burnley (Mr. Pike) and for Oxford, East (Mr. Smith). I thank the hon. Member for Oxford, East in particular for his kind tribute to my academic credentials. It remains to be seen whether he will feel as generous after what I have to say.
I am all the more glad to take part in the debate as the Government have cause to be justly proud of their achievements in higher education generally and, in particular, with regard to student support. I must make it clear that I do not dismiss allegations of student hardship and I will endeavour to respond to the points that have been raised.
I must make it clear at the outset that no system of student support can protect every student against hardship. However, we have an impressive array of arrangements for that purpose and we shall certainly continue to monitor the situation carefully. Before I come to the main burden of my remarks, I will try to answer some of the specific points that have been raised.
The hon. Member for Oldham, Central and Royton began by saying that he thought that it was wrong for students to be deprived of benefits. He felt that students should continue to have support from the benefit system. The Government believe that support for educational purposes should he directed through educational channels. The decision to undertake full-time study is a decision to invest in one's own future rather than to enter employment straight away. Ever-increasing numbers of young and mature students are taking that decision.
As the hon. Members for Oldham, Central and Royton and for Oxford, East recognised, the expansion of student numbers has been considerable and has been achieved in a way that has maintained quality and access for all categories of students. In case the hon. Member for Oldham, Central and Royton leaves the debate with the impression that students are fundamentally worse off, as he suggested, I remind him that the grant and full-year loan together are more than 30 per cent. higher than the grant was on its own in 1989–90. That has more than compensated the majority of students for any loss of benefits. On top of that, the access funds to which Opposition Members have referred, worth more than £25 million this year, allow colleges to support students in financial need and can be carefully targeted.
It is wrong to say that student support is inadequate. The figures on the full package of support available to students, both from grants and from loans, make it clear that the system is generous and is meeting needs.

Mr. Andrew Smith: If the system is as generous and adequate as the Minister claims, what advice would he give a student this summer whose institution has already spent all its access fund, who is not entitled to income support or housing benefit, and who has exhausted the patience of his or her parents, bank and landlord?

Mr. Forman: Hard cases make bad law. There is no doubt that, from time to time, a small minority of students will find themselves in hardship, but the vast majority of students are very adequately helped by the buoyancy of


student loans. It is somewhat surprising —the hon. Gentleman should recognise it —that the take-up of student loans is still less than 40 per cent., according to the latest figures. Given that those loans are available to students, that hardly suggests that hardship can be all that widespread or deep. If there were the problems that the hon. Gentleman suggests and on the scale that he talks about, students would be wise, and indeed they are still able, to apply for a loan before the end of the relevant period.
The hon. Gentleman is basing his argument on a very small part of the sample. He should take account of the fact that the majority of students still are adequately financed from grants, from holiday work or from parental contributions, or a mixture of those things, and that they see fit not to take out the student loan that is available from the student loans scheme.

Dr. Lynne Jones: If the Minister is not prepared to accept Opposition Members' concerns, does he accept that the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals has expressed concern about student hardship and the quality of education that it is able to offer with available resources not matching the increase in student numbers?

Mr. Forman: I am aware that the increase in student numbers has been accompanied by a maintenance of quality in all its forms and that there is no sign from the figures relating to new entrants into higher education that anybody is being deterred from entering higher education by the arrangements that we have in place.
I link that comment with a point that was made by the hon. Member for Burnley. The drop-out rate from higher education is the lowest in the advanced world. It is about 5 per cent.—I speak from memory —which is much lower than in comparable countries. That is because we have an efficient, cost-effective education system which, on all the evidence, is not deterring new students. Indeed, the number of students has increased by 16 per cent. this year over last year. and we expect the number to continue to increase in future. As the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Dr. Jones) probably knows, current projections suggest that, whereas one in four of the relevant cohort is entering higher education today, it is likely to be one in three before the end of the decade. I do not accept the argument that students are deterred by the financial arrangements—quite the contrary.
Several Opposition Members made points about graduate unemployment and the difficulty in obtaining jobs. I accept that graduates may temporarily be finding it somewhat less easy to obtain employment of the type that they would ideally like, but the fact remains that investment in higher education is good for the young people in question. Ever-increasing numbers recognise that fact by entering higher education.
One of the many advantages of the student loans scheme is that if graduates cannot find work or are on low incomes for a while, they may defer their repayments for a year at a time. The possibility of deferral exists.
As for the point about vacation work to supplement the money available to students, I took the trouble just this afternoon to look at today's copy of the Evening Standard. In the section on hotel and catering—just one page—several jobs are available to young people. They include jobs as bar persons, catering assistants, sandwich bar

assistants and other such part-time jobs which pay reasonable money and would be ideal to provide a supplement for many students. It is common knowledge that successive generations of students both in Britain and elsewhere have found it normal to supplement their income while at university by working part time.

Mr. Greg Pope: I suspect that it is slightly fewer years since I was at university than since the Minister was a student. I certainly had to supplement my income when I was at university. I did several different jobs in the summer holidays. Does the Minister agree that student hardship is not simply a matter of grants versus loans—although I find it despicable that students have to start their working life with a debt hanging around their neck —and that the real issue is benefits? Thousands of students live in sub-standard housing because the Government refuse to allow them housing benefit. The amount of money that it would cost the Government is small. The Government's attitude is petty and mean-minded. Does the Minister agree that it would be better for all involved to reinstate housing benefit as soon as possible for students?

Mr. Forman: That is not the best way forward. The Government took the decision to withdraw housing benefit from students. It is available in only a small minority of cases for particularly vulnerable groups. It is right to concentrate on them. Supplementary allowances protect the most vulnerable groups.
Several hon. Members referred to the access funds. The hon. Member for Oxford, East referred to the survey of access funds carried out by his party. He should be careful not to draw sweeping conclusions from such relatively flimsy evidence. As I understand it—he will correct me if I am wrong—the survey covered a third of higher education institutions. It found that a third had completely exhausted their access funds and a third had no more than £1,500 left. He must realise that arithmetically that is a shaky sample. It implies in any case that for each finding one is talking about one ninth of the institutions. That implies that seven ninths are in a satisfactory position with the access funds and the vast majority target their money in the appropriate way.

Mr. Andrew Smith: I referred earlier to the Minister's distinguished credentials in social science. Does he accept that a random sample of 27 out of 100 or so of higher education institutions is a good and indicative sample? We found that 44 per cent. had totally exhausted their fund and 63 per cent. had less than £1,500 left. The overwhelming probability is that that is typical of the higher education institutions and their students. The survey is a solid basis for supposing that there is, indeed, an imminent crisis of acute student hardship this summer.

Mr. Forman: We take the view that it is for higher education institutions to decide on the allocations. In the previous year they were able to bring forward a portion of that money. We should target on the most needy students, because that is what the funds are designed to do. They are designed not to be a flat-rate, across-the-board supplement for all students, but to be targeted on those in greatest need.

Mr. Smith: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way again. He referred to the fact that last year institutions were able to pre-empt 10 per cent. of the access funds from


the current year's expenditure. If it was right to do so last year, why is it not right this year? Will he give a commitment that institutions can draw on next year's access fund?

Mr. Forman: It was right to do so last year because it was at an early stage in the access fund arrangements. We believe that it is now right to continue on a regular basis and not to have that arrangement for the coming year.
I should return to the main thrust of my remarks. There are some widespread misconceptions about financial support for students, some of which have been mentioned in the debate. For the benefit of the House, I shall set out five key facts about the situation of students.
First, we have increased students' resources substantially in the past two years. Grants and loans form the central elements of our support package. The full-year loan, together with the grant, now gives students over 30 per cent. more than the grant two years ago. This autumn, we shall uprate average student support from grant and loan by a further 4·5 per cent., thereby maintaining its value in real terms. As a result, full-year support this autumn will be nearly 40 per cent. higher than the grant alone in 1989–90. That represents a substantial real-terms increase. It has been achieved at a time when some members of society have been much less fortunate financially. Students should recognise that. In other words, a considerable number of the people who contribute to student support, through the tax system, are less well off than the students themselves, and one needs to consider that.
In addition, it is often forgotten that we are continuing to uprate the supplementary allowances that are payable with the grant. This autumn, we shall increase them by 4·5 per cent. I think that the hon. Gentleman knows from his experience of such matters that they go to, among others, mature students, students with dependants, disabled students and those studying at their colleges during the vacation. They provide an important additional resource for many students with additional needs, and that is a good example of the targeting in which the Government believe.

Mr. John Hutton: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way again. Much of our discussion has been about students in higher education. Is he satisfied with the current financial provision for students in further education, because many students in local colleges in my constituency have been complaining about the low level of support that they get from their local education authorities?

Mr. Forman: The hon. Gentleman is right to use those words—it is for local education authorities to decide on the support that they can allocate to students. It is not for central Government to step in to suggest increases, or changes in the system. I am satisfied with the present arrangements. It must be for local education authorities to determine to what extent they support students.
The access funds are worth more than £25 million in total this year. They enable institutions to provide discretionary support for students in financial need. We have taken care to ensure that the distribution of the access funds to institutions is weighted to reflect regional

variations in the cost of accommodation, for example. For this academic year, institutions can provide help from the funds at any time up to 31 August.
Secondly, we have started to reduce in real terms the average parental contribution to the grant. It is now frozen in cash for those parents whose residual incomes rise in line with national average earnings. Such parents will find that they are paying less and less in real terms over time. Indeed, they are already paying less than last year. Those whose income rises faster than average earnings may pay a little more out of their higher income. Conversely, those whose income does not rise as fast as average earnings will pay less in cash than they did before. Many other parents, of course, are not assessed for any contribution at all. As a result, the loans scheme is now starting to share the cost of student maintenance more fairly between students themselves, their parents and the taxpayer. I regard that as an equitable sharing of the burden of student support.

Mr. Pike: The Minister has said that the parental contribution is fixed by the grant regulations. Does he accept that the majority of parents give more than their set contribution—if they can do so—to avoid their children suffering hardship? In some cases parents will go short to ensure that their student children do not suffer. Those extra parental contributions hide the real problem.

Mr. Forman: I pay tribute to parents who make a substantial contribution towards the costs of their children's education. It is right and proper that they should. Most parents that I know with children in that category strive to do just that.
Those contributions represent part of the burden that is borne by parents and it is quite right that the increments of financial support available to students in the coming years should be taken up principally by the loan, which is not means-tested and which is a buoyant source of finance.
I mentioned vulnerable students earlier and it is important that the funds for such students are now rightly directed through the existing funding channels. We have ensured that those students remain eligible in certain cases for housing benefit and income support. As hon. Members are aware, those students include disabled students, lone parents and those with dependent children. Many other students did not claim those benefits when they were available some time ago. For them, the new grant and loan package has presented them with a big gain in resources.
Many students find income from other sources as a result of part-time work in term time or summer jobs. Opposition Members must acknowledge that from their constituency experience. The facts are clear. A recent survey by the National Union of Students, for what it was worth, suggested that 65 per cent. of students found work in summer 1991. They earned about £800 on average, which is not insignificant. That money represents an increment and is in addition to other streams of income available to students.
I have already spoken about the loan facility, which is generous and buoyant. Let me remind Opposition Members of the generous terms of that scheme. Loans are indexed to the rate of inflation. Last year, that meant an indexation rate of 9·8 per cent. This year, it has been 5·8 per cent.—a full four percentage points lower. That is a consequence of the Government's success in reducing inflation. For next year, the rate will be the increase in the retail prices index in the year to June. We shall announce


that figure tomorrow. I look forward to seeing what it is. I should be surprised if it did not offer good news for students and borrowers under the loans scheme. There is also generous provision for borrowers whose incomes are no more than moderate. Under the present arrangements, they can defer their repayments if their gross income is £1,055 a month or less. From September, that threshold will rise to £1,130 a month, equivalent to more than £13,500 a year. Taken together with the indexation rate, that means that student loans are available on far more favourable terms than any other form of credit. They are the best deal in town. Loans are here to stay. The hon. Member for Oldham, Central and Royton devoted the bulk of his speech to calling on the Government to get rid of the student loan scheme, but I must tell him that we intend it to expand gradually in time so that it takes up proportionately more of the weight of student support.
Last year, only 28 per cent. of eligible students actually took out loans, despite the fact that the scheme was widely publicised. This year, take-up has been considerably higher. Nevertheless, we expect that, by the end of the academic year in a few weeks' time, at most 40 per cent. of eligible students will have taken out loans. It is their right to make that decision, but our policy has always been to make the extra money available and to leave it to the students to decide whether to borrow those resources. However, that does tell us something about alleged student hardship. It suggests that many students are able to manage on the grant alone, supplemented by other income. The fact is that many simply do not seem to need all the resources that the Government have made available.
There is now widespread and increasing agreement that students should make some contribution to the cost of their higher education. Of course, they do not contribute while they are studying. They start to repay after they have completed their course and then only when they have started to earn reasonable incomes. In time, many will

enjoy a much higher income than the taxpayers who paid for the costs of their education. I agree with the hon. Gentleman on that. Thus, by spreading the cost of student support, we can pay for the rapid expansion of higher education that we have seen—and welcomed—in recent years. We must not forget the extraordinary surge in participation that higher education has witnessed. It is proof positive that our financial arrangements for student support have not deterred an increasing number of people going into higher education. In 1979, only one young person in eight entered higher education. It is now one in four. And, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made clear at Portsmouth recently, we now expect participation to reach one in three well before the year 2000. [Interruption.]

Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): Order. Is the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) seeking to intervene?

Mr. Forman: I do not claim that the resources available to students during their studies enable them to live in affluence. But I do believe that they can enjoy a reasonable level of support and that there is a satisfactory system in place. Next year, full-year students living away from their parents' home and studying outside London will have £2,980 available to them in grant and loan. Those studying in London can get £3,675. Many students receive supplementary allowances with the grant. Others receive access fund payments. A few in special categories receive benefits. Many can get part-time or vacation jobs if they wish to top up those resources.
By providing these greatly increased resources and funding the huge expansion of higher education, the Government have shown their whole-hearted commitment to students and to higher education. We know that, in time, that commitment will pay dividends for the individual concerned and for the nation as a whole.

Orders of the Day — Latin America

Mr. Ray Whitney: I am delighted to have this opportunity to introduce the fifth annual debate on relations between this country and Latin America. I know that all the officers of the Latin American committee are also grateful for this opportunity. These rather arcane procedures that see us having debates going through the night at this stage of the term can at least be used to sensible advantage from time to time. I hope that my hon. Friends on the Front Bench do not take that as meaning that we are satisfied with these arcane procedures, and I hope that the proposals for change that are before the House will have their blessing, and that we shall find new ways to have debates on vital subjects such as this.
Last year, I said that all hon. Members were distracted by many other developments from the sort of attention that we might profitably give to Latin America. What was true last year has now become even more obvious. As Members of Parliament, we are all concerned with a variety of issues that affect our constituents—including the economic problems of not just this country but the world. When we consider matters relating to the European Community and Maastricht, events in what used to be the Soviet Union, in eastern Europe and, above all, in what used to be Yugoslavia, it does not seem surprising that hon. Members' interest in tensions in Latin America has been less than many of us would wish.
I believe that the Latin Americans, although sensitive to our attitude, also understand it, and may even take comfort from the fact that, whereas in the past we were ready to point a finger at tensions and border disputes in Latin America, those problems are as nothing to the horrors that we on the continent of Europe have generated during the past one or two years. I do not know the Spanish translation of the word "schadenfreude", but whatever it is, that is the way that Latin Americans might be considering that development.
All of us who take an interest in Latin America understand the importance of maintaining and developing Britain's interest in that continent. We recognise that there should be a renewal of the well-known—at least among hon. Members present this evening—historical links that Britain has for so long enjoyed with that continent.
We are at an important juncture because, in the past few weeks, there has been a major development: the visit by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to Colombia and Brazil. His visit to Colombia was the first ever visit of a British Prime Minister when in office to a Latin American country. That thought is in itself extraordinary, but at least the precedent has now been established, and I congratulate my right hon. Friend on that. I understand that his awareness of the countries that he visited and the whole of the sub-continent was alerted. In the wake of that visit, it is time to launch a renewed effort to develop this nation's interests in Latin America. I have every reason to hope that that will happen.
Twenty years ago, when I was a diplomat in Buenos Aires, a special conference on Latin America was organised in Lancaster house. It was a way of focusing the interest of Britain—particularly British business, but also our other cultural, social, academic and political links—on

Latin America. I believe that everything that has happened in those 20 years—especially the encouraging developments of recent years—mean that it is now time to launch another conference at the highest, prime ministerial, level.
Next year is the 50th anniversary of the creation of Canning house—an institution which is well known to those hon. Members present in the Chamber, and of which we should all be proud. It is a unique focus of the study and development of links with Latin America. It is a small cost burden to the British taxpayer and is greatly supported by private interest. I commend that part of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office budget and hope that that support will continue, even in these straitened times. Next year is the 50th anniversary of Canning house, and that would be an appropriate time to stage a new conference to demonstrate Britain's interest in and commitment to a continent of 450 million people and the commercial, political and economic importance that that implies.
The realisation has dawned that Latin America is no longer a continent of tinpot dictators and banana republics, and it is now understood that democracy has been established. However, it is not quite understood that the democratic Governments in Latin America are still relatively tender and need as much support as possible. That support should be internal, but the more traditional and longer established democracies also have a role to play.
In Latin America, the 1980s were known as the lost decade, when the gross domestic product of almost every Latin American country and its standard of living fell. Those phenomena put great strains on the body politic. Therefore, it is especially remarkable that democracy emerged, but it means that in some Latin American countries the democratic institutions that we all take for granted are thin and embryonic and need much help and understanding from the developed world. I shall devote the rest of my speech to that.
Our media have an unhappy record on extending and improving the understanding of what happens in Latin America. Everyone in political life is familiar with the sad but undoubtedly true platitude that good news is not news and bad news is what is published. That means that only the difficulties and disasters in Latin America form the diet on which we are fed. That is a sad fact, but as politicians we expect to live with it. That does not mean that we should accept or take it for granted. We should complain about it, and I hope that those responsible for reporting on Latin America will take note.
Another even more worrying phenomenon is the extraordinary tendency of those who claim to be the intellectuals or the intelligentsia of western Europe, including the United Kingdom—the chattering classes generally and the media—to light upon every far-out, left-wing organisation that appears on the scene and to invest it with a haloed, sanctified status as the defender of the people of Latin America against a cruel and oppressive dictatorship. That has happened in the past, but much more often than not, and certainly in recent years, that has not been the true picture. [Interruption.] I note the scoffing reaction of the hon. Member on the Labour Front Bench, who represents a Scottish constituency but whose name escapes me. He thinks that this is a laughing matter.

Mr. George Foulkes: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Whitney: Certainly, when I have finished my sentence. It is not a laughing matter but a matter of great concern to all of us who value democracy and human rights in Latin America.

Mr. Foulkes: One of these days I shall take the hon. Gentleman around Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley so that he not only knows how to pronounce it but knows more about it. I know that he knows a great deal about Latin America. I was not laughing. I was astonished that he was dismissing so lightly dictatorships such as that of Pinochet in Chile, that of Somoza in Nicaragua and the others under which the people of Latin America have suffered. It was that which was causing us concern. I hope that the hon. Gentleman, who has a good record of supporting democratic development in Latin America, agrees with us about that.

Mr. Whitney: I am glad that the hon. Member from Scotland was not laughing about the problems of Latin America. Had he been listening carefully, and if he reads the transcript of what I said, he will see that there is no question of my defending the Somoza or Pinochet regimes. Using a little psychiatry or psychology, I would suggest that that was a transference of the hon. Gentleman's own prejudices rather than mine. I think that the hon. Member —or certainly some of his hon. Friends, such as the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) in whose presence we usually rejoice on such occasions but who, sadly, could not be with us tonight—is a splendid manifestation of what I was talking about. Cuba is a long-standing favourite of such hon. Members. While every other communist, Marxist or Stalinist regime has collapsed in disorder and contumely, Cuba clings on. It has an ever decreasing band of supporters and defenders but some of them are to be found—not tonight, but from time to time—on the Labour Benches.
Napoleon Duarte, a very brave man and a dedicated democratic socialist, struggled against the FLMN in El Salvador. The Sandinistas in Nicaragua were the friends of many on the left and many of the more normal members of the Labour party. They were the darlings of the chattering classes and of the media. It required only one democratically run election for the people of Nicaragua to eject the Sandinistas.
This is the opportunity to draw to the House's attention —and I hope that it will go further—a much more worrying phenomenon: the treatment given by some circles in London and other western European capitals to the extraordinary regime of the Sendero Luminoso in Peru. We know that there are serious difficulties in Peru at the moment. We are studying carefully the action of President Fujimori some months ago, and we appreciate the tensions and pressures, but that does not mean that the terrorism of the Sendero Luminoso can be excused. There is no doubt that the struggles and terrorist tactics of the Sendero Luminoso are adding significantly to Peru's problems.
The Sendero Luminoso was formed by Abimael Guzman in 1980. He rejoiced in the successes of Stalin and said that Mao Tse-tung's only mistake was that he did not go far enough. He has led the terrorist regime which has been responsible for about 30,000 deaths in Peru. Yet some in the media naively accept the claims of this terrorist organisation, Sendero Luminoso. There was an especially depressing example in June when a programme entitled

"Condemned to Win" was broadcast as part of the series called "Dispatches". It was a flattering and sympathetic portrayal of a barbarous and bloodthirsty organisation.
An exception to the worrying tendency of so much of the media to accept far-left and bloodthirsty movements was an extremely informative and reliable article written by Caroline Moorehead, which appeared in The Independent magazine of 20 June. She recited several instances of terrorist activities. For example, there was the murder of the deputy mayor of Villa El Salvador on the outskirts of Lima, one Maria Elena Moyano. She was shot and her body was blown up by dynamite. Her two sons, aged 11 and 12, watched over her. There are many such examples, yet The Guardian will carry a letter from a lady who calls herself a representative of the Federation of Democratic Women of Peru, who seemingly rejoices that Maria Elena was executed for a long list of offences.
For a major British television channel to broadcast such a sympathetic portrayal of such a bloodthirsty organisation as Sendero Luminoso is a grave indictment of the British media. Yet again, it increases the problems with which we all wrestle—veracity and responsibility as against the difficulties of censorship. I earnestly hope that we are not moving yet again into a cycle in which certain quarters in London and other west European capitals allow distortions of realities, whether it be Peru now, Nicaragua in the past or whatever Latin American country it will be in future.
We have a duty in the House and outside to ensure that we become increasingly better informed. There are many opportunities to develop our links with the 450 million people of Latin America. We in the United Kingdom must continue to deal with the Falkland Islands, which is a special issue. That means that we must deal with Argentina. We are delighted that relations with Argentina have moved as they have over recent years, but the issue of the Falkland Islands still awaits a solution. The resolution of the problem will be to the interest and benefit of the islanders as well as of the United Kingdom and Argentina.
Beyond that, we in Britain have tremendous economic opportunities. I understand that my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham (Mr. Arnold), if he catches your eye, Madam Deputy Speaker, will enlarge upon those issues. That being so, I shall not trespass into that territory.
Problems still remain in Latin America, such as debt, population, disparity of wealth and institutional weaknesses, but there have been real achievements. There are challenges for the United Kingdom. I hope that, under the leadership of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, with his new awareness of the significance of the South American continent, we shall take advantage of the opportunities.

Mr. Jacques Arnold: I welcome this, the fifth annual summer debate on Britain's relations with Latin America. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Mr. Whitney) on so ably leading the debate. It is a case perhaps of quality rather than quantity of hon. Members.
When the House is concerned with vital matters such as the trouble in the former Soviet Union and Yugoslavia, it is important that we do not overlook the quietly developing region of Latin America. It has many qualities.
First, every republic in the region, with the sole exception of Cuba, is run by duly elected presidents. Every republic is practising liberal market economics. They are dismantling the 1950s and 1960s models of import substitution and massive nationalisation, which caused such stunting of their economies. Their enthusiastic adoption of the free market system and the fact that they are now working through the world open trading system give great inspiration, which this House should duly recognise. In particular, those countries are following the example of Chile, which through the adoption of the free market economy has proved that considerable success can be achieved in Latin America.
Latin America is based on a largely European culture and immigration. It has a cadre of business men, lawyers, diplomats and scientists of a world standard, with whom we could easily work. The past year has been a good one for Britain's relations with Latin America. Only last month there was the first visit of a British Prime Minister in office to that continent. My right hon. Friend visited both Colombia and Brazil during the Earth summit. It is not a breach of confidence to say that he was enthused by what he saw. He told the House in his statement on 15 June:
The purpose of my visit was to reaffirm our support for Colombian democracy, her market economy and her brave and successful fight against drug trafficking."—[Official Report, 15 June 1992; Vol. 209, c. 650.]
My right hon. Friend's visit and the renewed interest in Latin America is not a flash in the pan. Last month, The Guardian reported my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary as saying:
The British Government decided to make a deliberate and vigorous effort to restore the historical relationship with Latin America.
The article states that my right hon. Friend
added that both Government and business in Britain were looking with fresh eyes at this region.
Much of the credit for the growing interest in Latin America should go to my right hon. Friend the Member for Watford (Mr. Garel-J ones), who was aptly described in the same article in the following terms:
A fluent Spanish speaker, he has emanated a clear vision that Britain is missing out on business opportunities.
Latin America is under way. Nevertheless, the two great pillars of its resurgence are akin to two young saplings, both fragile but both offering excellent prospects for the future. The first of those saplings is democracy. As I said, all of Latin America, with the exception of Cuba, is now run by elected presidents. However, there are problems. After decades of military rule, many of the Congresses are populated by a combination of grand extinct volcanoes from ancient political dynasties and—disturbingly for us—very young politicians.
Only yesterday, the Speaker of the Panamanian Congress visited this House. He was only3l years of age, which makes some of us feel desperately old. What we have found in the young parliamentarians from Latin America who have visited this House is that many of them offer great hope for the future. Their problem is that they lack so many of the procedures, practices and experiences that we in this House take for granted. But that is precisely where we can be of use and help them.
In particular, I commend the work of the Inter-Parliamentary Union. For example, a delegation of

Paraguayan parliamentarians came here last year and next week we shall have a delegation from Mexico. The Paraguayans were impressed by much of what they saw here. They took a particular interest in the parliamentary ombudsman and have set up exactly such an institution in their own country, based on the British model.
However, democracy in Latin America is susceptible to corruption and disorder, and that has led to the first blemish on the escutcheon of restored Latin American democracy. When President Fujimori, the duly elected president of Peru, recently closed the Peruvian Congress, he said that the aim of his military-backed self-coup on 5 April was to replace Peru's frivolous, inoperative and corrupt democracy by what he termed an authentic one.
With the coaxing and encouragement of many countries, not least our own, President Fujimori has mapped out what he means by an authentic democracy and has laid down a timetable, through a constituent assembly, for a new Congress early next year. The Government must staunchly uphold democracy, but we should admit a touch of sympathy and understanding for President Fujimori's dilemma.
My hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe touched on the kind of problems with which Peru has to cope. President Fujimori and his country suffer from ruthless and merciless terrorists—the Sendero Luminoso. Inspired by Chairman Mao and financed by drug money, they have extended their pitiless activity into the urban area of Lima, the capital, from the peasant areas in the south of the country which they have terrorised for years. Some years ago I travelled in southern Peru and saw some of their activities for myself. Peru therefore has problems in maintaining democracy, and the kind of thing that we saw on television in Britain not so long ago does nothing to help Peru return to and develop a full democracy.
Peru is not alone in having problems maintaining its democracy. There are other rumblings in Latin America. If we do not help in those areas, we shall see a collapse into dictatorship, from which Latin America has only just emerged.
Only this year, the stresses of economic reform have brought an attempted coup in Venezuela and in Brazil there are moves to impeach President Fernando Collor de Mello on corruption charges. President Rodriguez of Paraguay has reacted angrily to his Congress's action to block his standing for re-election.
Yet democracy is taking root in Latin America. Recently—the first time ever, I believe—one elected president has followed another in both Argentina and Peru. Chile too has carried through local elections which have proved that representative democracy is taking root once again in that country as well.
The other of the two saplings in Latin America is the free enterprise, free trade economy. Those of us who have taken an interest in Latin America over the years have been used to decades of protectionist import substitution economic policies in Latin America, with self-serving nationalised industries which have wasted vast resources. We can only marvel at the new approach that we are seeing today. The trade barriers are coming down and with them have come massive opportunities for Britain which we overlook at our peril.
The Government have started some imaginative initiatives to take advantage of those same opportunities. The imaginative Proyecto Venezuela recently carried out a project identifying opportunities for British goods and


services in Venezuela and potential British suppliers, bringing them together through well-produced directories so as to build up British trade and investment in Venezuela. I understand that that was a prototype and I hope that it will be followed in an increasing number of countries, not least in Latin America.
International trade, however, is a two-way process. It is praiseworthy that Latin American markets are now open to British exports and investments, but European markets must likewise be open to Latin American exports, especially exports of agricultural products. That is why the continuing efforts of our right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to obtain a final settlement of the Uruguay round of the GATT is so critically important. If we let Fortress Europe develop to the detriment of the developing world and its exports, we shall destroy the new economic order in Latin America.
We should note what is already happening. We should note the development of the North American free trade area, taking in Mexico. It could play an increasingly protectionist role, opening Mexico to United States exports at the expense of exports from Britain and the rest of Europe.
Furthermore, other Latin American countries are queueing to join because we are not providing the opportunities here. Chile is ready to join;Venezuela considers itself a US strategic partner, because it supplies so much of its oil to the US; Panama also claims to be such a strategic partner, on the ground that it has the Panama canal. And so it goes on. If we do not solve the problem in the near future, we shall see Latin America, in reverse order, carrying out the Monroe doctrine and becoming a supplicant of the United States. That is not in the interests of Europe, or in those of Latin America itself.
Even in the south of the South American continent, countries are turning inwards by linking up through Mercosul, and likewise within the Andean pact. If they turn inwards and exclude their foreign partners, it will be to the detriment of both them and us, as trading partners.
I should like this country to be Latin America's champion in the European Community, which remains one of the principal obstructions to the completion of the GATT round. We in Britain are singularly well equipped for the role. Historically, we were the champions of Latin American independence. In 1826, in this very House, George Canning—then Foreign Secretary—declared that we had
brought the New World into existence to redress the balance of the Old."—[Official Report, 12 December 1826; Vol. 16, c. 397.]
British soldiers and sailors fought alongside Bolivar's army to bring about independence in the north of the continent. Lord Cochrane's ships fought with the Brazilians and the Chileans for their independence. Since then, we have invested and created the railways, the utilities and the industries. We were the co-operators, not the conquerors, of Latin America. We have a continuing fund of good will in that continent—a fund that we are not tapping, but could well tap.
In the context of today's European Community, the interests of the United Kingdom have converged with those of Latin America. We believe in and practise free trade; we oppose the agricultural subsidies on which the countries of southern Europe depend. Spain and Portugal, the metropolitan countries, both rely on subsidies from the European Community and oppose the import of much of

Latin America's agricultural produce. Latin America itself knows that we shall fight its corner, and we must press on. The Government must continue their efforts to strengthen Britain as the first port of call for Latin Americans in Europe.
Three practical measures can be undertaken. First, we must further extend the teaching of Spanish, and even Portuguese, in our schools and colleges. Secondly, we must reinforce the work of the British Council, and its offshoot the Cultura Inglesa in Latin America. Their teaching of English—by which I mean English English, not United States English—is invaluable, and traditionally preferred by Latin Americans. Thirdly, we must strengthen Latin American institutions in London. Principal among those is Canning house, the Latin American centre in London. Canning house will celebrate its 50th anniversary next year, and I hope that the Government will give thought to the ways in which they may support its proposal for a major conference then, in which some of my right hon. Friends could play a major role in drawing in the captains of British industry to consider opportunities for Britain in Latin America.
We can all see that Latin America is on its way again. There is wind in its sails, and I hope that this country will take a leading role in working with it.

Mr. George Foulkes: I shall start by quoting Lady Thatcher, although I do not often do that —It's a funny old world." Here we all are again. The hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr. Whitney) has again been lucky in the draw, and we must congratulate him on his energy and diligence as well as on his luck. This year our annual Latin America debate is two weeks earlier in the month, and, thankfully, two hours—

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Mark Lennox-Boyd): No.

Mr. Foulkes: I should have said that unfortunately, although it is two weeks earlier in the month, the debate is taking place two hours later in the day. I must get that right, as the Minister has corrected me.
We have much the same cast for the debate as we had last year, although the Minister of State, the right hon. Member for Watford (Mr. Garel-Jones), is no doubt pursuing the interests of this country in some far-off Eldorado while we welcome in his stead the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State. I am pleased, too, that my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Blackley (Mr. Eastham) has sat through the whole debate, and shows a keen interest in Latin America.
However, this year we do not hear such delight at the outcome of the G7 as we heard last year about the London G7. The hon. Member for Wycombe praised the outcome last year, and talked about the great opportunity for the completion of the Uruguay round of the GATT talks. A year later we are in the same position as we were then, and the hon. Gentleman is not praising the Munich G7. I quite understand why.

Mr. Whitney: I am puzzled; I hope that the hon. Gentleman is not exulting in the fact that our high hopes of last year have not been realised. Generous as he is, I hope that he will use the opportunity, while dwelling on the present situation of the GATT round and the G7, to


pay due tribute to the tremendous efforts of the Prime Minister in the past few days to persuade his colleagues in G7 to make progress on the Uruguay round of GATT.

Mr. Foulkes: I am certainly not exulting, and I shall come to a tribute to the Prime Minister soon, which will surprise the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends. I was showing that I had done the hon. Gentleman the courtesy of reading the speech that he made last year, and I noted that his tone and some of his remarks had changed this year. I shall come to a little bit of humility soon, which will also surprise Conservative Members.
There is also, rightly, a little less euphoria this year about the democratic revolution in Latin America. Unfortunately, the causes for euphoria are not as great as they were last year—I shall dwell at some length on that fact. I even detect some slight tempering of last year's claims by some Conservative neo-economists about the miracles that the market economy can deliver everywhere.
Now I come to the humility: one of my predictions last year—that we should be conducting the debate from different Dispatch Boxes this year—has also proved less than inspired. However, I assure you, Madam Deputy Speaker, that that pleasure has merely been postponed — although I shall not say for how long.

Mr. Jacques Arnold: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Foulkes: I have only just started. Oh, all right.

Mr. Arnold: Will the hon. Gentleman forecast whether, if the occupant of the Chair on that occasion is willing, he will be replying to a debate on Latin America next year?

Mr. Foulkes: I have ambitions, although I shall not reveal them now. We have just started the elections to the shadow Cabinet, so this is not the time to talk about such matters.
In passing I should also welcome my hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell, North (Dr. Reid), who has sat through almost all the debate, and who has long shown a special interest in Latin America.
A debate about British relations with Latin America is even more important now that the conditions are right for those relations to be strengthened, with Britain leading the European Community, as the hon. Member for Gravesham (Mr. Arnold) said a few minutes ago. Prevailing democratic trends and the growing economies of much of Latin America provide an opportunity for closer links. While the Prime Minister's visit to Rio was welcome—even if its purpose was the Earth summit and not establishing closer relations with the region —

Mr. Jacques Arnold: My right hon. Friend visited Colombia as well.

Mr. Foulkes: Yes, and I welcome that. He was the first-ever British Prime Minister of any party to set foot on South American soil, and that indicates how little attention the British Government have paid in the past to Latin America. I am glad that is being corrected.
The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs said in Mexico two months ago:
The British Government have decided to make a deliberate and vigorous effort to restore the historical relationship with Latin America.

That serves to remind us that our trade with Latin America remains marginal. As other hon. Members said, only £1 billion of our exports go there.
I am sceptical about Government claims of increasing trade and co-operation with Latin America. The Opposition strongly believe that such links should be strengthened. I know that the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, with his special knowledge, is keen to see that done, and I hope that the Under-Secretary will confirm that he believes that there are tremendous opportunities for investment and trading co-operation with that region. I hope that he will confirm also that the region's stability, prosperity—with some qualifications, which I shall mention later—and developing democracy provide the opportunities described by Conservative Members.
In last year's debate, we all expressed optimism about the continuation of democracy in Latin America. In retrospect, perhaps we were a little complacent. The succeeding 12 months have underlined that the fight for democracy is a long and continuing struggle. The outlook for democracy in Latin America still gives cause for concern.
Just a short time ago, almost the whole continent was under democratic rule for the first time in its history. I do not share the view taken by the hon. Member for Gravesham. I believe that the picture has clouded. The backward steps of the attempted coups in Venezuela, Haiti, and Peru emphasise how fragile democracy remains in some parts of Latin American. I welcome the establishment recently of the British-Venezuelan Cultural Trust, founded by Marcel Curiel, a prominent Venezuelan business man who provided the initial funds. The hon. Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Mr. Conway) and I have the privilege of being two of its founding trustees. We hope that it will help to establish cultural, educational, and other links between Britain and Venezuela. My earlier remarks emphasised the importance of doing so.
Recent events in Peru also sound ominous warnings for the survival of democracy on that continent. I make it clear to the hon. Member for Wycombe in particular that we hold no brief for Sendero Luminoso—Shining Path. My hon. Friends and I would feel concern at any parallel being drawn between the activities of Sendero Luminoso, which is a terrorist organisation, and the fight by the Sandinistas against a dictatorship in Nicaragua. I regret the unfortunate remark by the hon. Member for Wycombe.
As to Peru, now is the time for the rest of the world to demonstrate that the days of South American dictators are over. There can be no justification for the suspension of democracy in Peru. The whole international community must show that leaders such as Fujimori cannot seek to solve their country's problems—and Peru certainly has vast problems—by carrying out army-backed coups. That —as Fujimori has already found out—is the route to increased problems. There is no doubt that he greatly underestimated the scale of international condemnation of his actions.
A direct consequence of that external criticism was the alteration of the timetable for a return to democracy, as the hon. Member for Gravesham (Mr. Arnold) rightly said. Elections for the constituent assembly are now to be held in November. However, the pressure from the international community must be maintained to ensure


that Fujimori, who has displayed a very strong authoritarian tendency, keeps his pledge to ensure real democracy in Peru.

Mr. John Wilkinson: When terrorism becomes an extreme menace to the state and threatens the lives of democratically-elected representatives and ordinary civilians, the state must take drastic measures to preserve itself as we did within our own polity when, in 1972, we abolished a democratically-elected assembly in Northern Ireland. We would not have done that had the IRA campaign of terror not been in full swing. We still do not have proper representative local government in Northern Ireland after all these years. That is a direct consequence of terrorist action.

Mr. Foulkes: I do not want to consider Northern Ireland in detail. However, the hon. Gentleman knows that Northern Ireland is still subject to democratic Government from this very House. He is part of it. In his army-backed coup, Fujimori undermined democracy and dissolved the elected Parliament.
I hope that Conservative Members will agree that the pressure should be kept on. We believe that Peru's dependence on international financial assistance means that the international community can play a key role in restoring democracy. In particular, Britain, in its presidency of the Community for the next six months, must play a leading part in keeping the pressure on. All co-operation must be conditional on the swift return to democracy. I hope that the Minister will reassure us that the British Government, in their Community presidency role and other roles, will keep that pressure on.
In passing, perhaps we should issue a little warning to our friends in the United States who might be thinking of diverting from their traditional political loyalties. The experience in Latin America of moving away from traditional political parties has not been that wonderful in Peru and Brazil. They might be wrong to believe that their salvation lies in moving away from traditional political loyalties.
No one has considered Haiti in detail during the debate. However, by saying that there is democracy in the whole of Latin America, the implication was that Haiti has some kind of democratic system. The situation in Haiti is even less encouraging. Marc Bazin was named Prime Minister in June, supported by the military and, of course, by business. Since he became Prime Minister repression has greatly increased. He achieved only 14 per cent. of the votes in the last presidential election when Father Aristide received 67 per cent.
The prospect of democracy in Haiti is, once again, very distant. The Tontons Macoutes have returned and political assassinations are commonplace with at least 2,000 people having been killed since the coup took place. The British Government, acting with others, must do all that they can to maintain and increase the isolation of Haiti. Brian Mulroney, the Canadian Prime Minister, said recently that he, with President Bush and President Mitterrand, were discussing plans to speed the return of Father Aristide to his role as the duly democratically elected president.
What will the British Government do? Are they involved and, if not, why not?

Mr. Jacques Arnold: The hon. Gentleman has highlighted a problem: where does Latin America start

and finish? Haiti is a francophone country and there is therefore some doubt as to whether it should be included with the other francophone countries of the Caribbean where it is located. If we are to include the islands of the Caribbean, and as Latin America is hispanic, as is Cuba, will the hon. Gentleman comment on the fact that communist Cuba is the only country in Latin America that does not have an elected president?

Mr. Foulkes: I do not want to cross swords with the hon. Gentleman about the definition. We would spend hours doing that, and we do not have hours. I want to give the Minister some time to reply. However, that is an interesting argument.
In relation to Cuba, I repeat what I said last year. It applies equally today. I said:
Let me express the hope … that the conditions in Cuba will soon allow a move towards pluralism. I strongly deplore the continuing confrontational attitude of the United States, which is hindering such a development."—[Official Report, 22 July 1991; Vol. 195, c. 856.]
That remains equally true today and it certainly is our position in relation to Cuba.
Overall democracy will be put to a severe test in Latin America over the next year or so. In several countries, including Venezuela, Guatemala, Nicaragua and even Brazil, there has been talk of coups. We must do all that we can—Conservative Members agree with me—in aid and in trade co-operation to ensure that the age of democracy in Latin America does not become a short-lived, transient fluke but is a lasting tradition as it moves from one democratic Government to the other, whether of the right or the left.
I now refer briefly to some social problems. Although the economic revival of Latin America is certainly welcome, the view has been expressed—perhaps not tonight, but elsewhere and on previous occasions — that all the problems are being solved by the economic revival. Latin America is a continent with a vastly unequal distribution of income and wealth. The neo-liberal policies advocated by Conservative Members, including again by the hon. Member for Gravesham, of low expenditure, privatisation and free markets have resulted certainly in lower inflation, in higher exports and in money pouring into the region, but at what social cost? Some of the incoming investment is just speculative. The deep, grinding poverty remains. National economies are still imbalanced because state action is minimal in many parts, and gross national product has not gone past the levels that it reached in the 1970s.
Not only is it clear that market forces are not enough, but there is a real danger that the neo-liberal economic strategy that is now dominant will increase inequalities and widen social cleavages. That will create a much greater potential for disruption and division within the region and put fledgling, fragile democracies at risk.
In Brazil, the drastic austerity programme, for example, has resulted in 12 million unemployed, wages that have fallen by 20 per cent. over the past year, and a minimum wage that has been reduced by successive freezes to a pitifully small amount. Brazil, the largest and richest country in the continent, now has the world's worst income distribution—a huge gap between the very rich and grinding poverty of many people. It has homelessness on the increase, rapidly growing shanty towns, and a rapidly


rising infant mortality rate. That picture will not help to stabilise, protect and preserve the fragile democracies that we have been talking about.
The truth about Latin America is that the hidden price of neo-liberal macro-economic success has been the living standards which are no higher than those of more than a decade ago—high unemployment, widespread lack of education and appalling housing and urban slums. In 1960, of the 400-odd million people about whom the hon. Member for Gravesham spoke, 100 million were below the poverty line. Thirty years later, after 30 years of so-called progress, more than 200 million are below the poverty line.

Mr. Jacques Arnold: Much of those 30 years was under military dictatorship, nationalised industry and state control. It is only in the past very few years that we have had free trade and liberal economics. At least we now have a chance of a breakthrough. The hon. Gentleman cannot say that 30 years of military dictatorship and nationalised industry are the fault of the current economic policy.

Mr. Foulkes: Unemployment, social divisions and divisions of wealth have increased in the past few years under the new liberal economic policies. As the hon. Gentleman knows, some of the dictators followed those policies, too.
While it is welcome that El Salvador's 12-year war is this year officially over, problems remain with the peace process. The fact that the fragile peace has held is as much a testament to war-weariness, after all the years of struggle and conflict, as anything else. However, I hope that the Minister will agree that it is to be deplored that while the Government of El Salvador have complied with the letter of the peace agreements, for example by disbanding the police units, they have not complied with the spirit. They have merely transferred the men and equipment to other units.
Despite the inevitable mutual distrust, the United Nations representatives in El Salvador have expressed some optimism that progress will continue to be made. But it is essential that the social and economic issues that caused the conflict in the first place are tackled, if the peace is to last. In that respect, reconstruction aid will be crucial. It is important that the American Government be encouraged to change military aid into aid for reconstruction. It is also important that Britain plays a role in providing much needed assistance. Even if the Minister cannot tell us anything tonight, I hope that he will undertake —

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I can.

Mr. Foulkes: Then I look forward to his saying it tonight.
Chile was mentioned by several Conservative Members. In some ways it is paradoxical that Chile provides one of the most encouraging models of the new Latin American democracy. Its Government take the most positive attitude of all Latin American countries to human rights. They are facing up to the unhappy legacies, instead of sweeping them under the carpet, as some other countries have tended to do. Chile has a compensation scheme for families of Pinochet's victims and is setting up a national organisation for reparation and reconciliation to seek a long-term answer to the problem of human

rights. That is a follow-up to last year's Rettig report, which detailed more than 1,000 cases of army responsibility for killings and disappearances.
There is to be a case against 17 of the carabinieros, including the commanding officer General Mendoza, for three murders, despite the amnesty granted by Pinochet for human rights abuses. That determination to face up to the past and seek justice is a notable example, which we hope that the rest of the region will follow.

Mr. Jacques Arnold: Including Cuba.

Mr. Foulkes: Yes, the whole of the region. I hope that the Minister will support that.
It is also worth noting that President Aylwin's Government, who preside over a booming economy, remain popular and secure. The right was humiliated in the recent historical municipal elections—in Chile, if not in the United Kingdom. I am honest, as ever.
We see great opportunities for developing trade in the economies of Latin America. I see that the time is moving on. I do not want to cut the Minister short so I shall cut my remarks short. I see great opportunities, but it is important that Britain sees and seizes the opportunities. In spite of all the United States rhetoric of enterprise for the Americas, when it has come to matching that rhetoric with real dollars, it has often failed. I hope that we shall see our opportunity and seize it.
As in many other areas, the British Government seem to have run out of steam in their relations with Latin America. Great opportunities exist in Latin America for Britain and the European Community. Britain has an opportunity as President of the Community to lead the way. We should break away from our preoccupation with Maastricht rebellions, looking over the Government's shoulder, additionality and subsidiarity. As 1994 approaches, it will be 500 years since the landfall of Cristobal Colon—to bring a little culture into the occasion I have got the pronunciation correct. As we do not have the Minister of State but only the Under-Secretary of State, perhaps I had better say Christopher Columbus. We should also look beyond Europe, and our day-to-day preoccupations with the European Community, to the new world and Latin America to provide at least a significant part of our future trade and political co-operation.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Mark Lennox-Boyd): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Mr. Whitney) on initiating the debate. He is the acknowledged leader of the Latin American group in the House of Commons. He mentioned that this is the fifth annual debate of this kind, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham (Mr. Arnold). I have no doubt that, as long as my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe is a Member of the House, he will take every opportunity to ensure that Latin American affairs are properly debated at this time of the year.
My right hon. Friend the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the Member for Watford (Mr. Garel-Jones), should have been replying to the debate, and I apologise on his behalf for his not being here. Among Foreign Office Ministers, he is the acknowledged expert on Latin America, as every hon. Member knows, but he is engaged on important European Community business


connected with the presidency. He would have had to cancel that appointment to be here tonight, and I hope that my hon. Friend accepts that that would have been the wrong decision.
As all hon. Members have recognised, Latin America has experienced dramatic political and economic change in recent years. Despite setbacks in one or two countries, as mentioned by the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) among others, and despite the unreformed communist regime in Cuba, democratic government is now the norm in most of the region. Of course, there is a little less euphoria now than there was 12 months ago. Earlier, I read the debate of 12 months ago, and I can judge that as well. However, there is a little less euphoria elsewhere in the world —for example, about eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union.

Dr. John Reid: And Britain.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: The hon. Gentleman makes his comment from a sedentary position.
In Latin America, we are observing free market economic policies, aimed at steady growth. The control of inflation and the encouragement of investment and competition have also been adopted by most of the countries in the region. Regional integration is being pursued, for example, through the establishment last year by Argentina, Brazil, Paraguay and Uruguay of Mercosur —a new southern-cone free trade area. As my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham mentioned, Mexico is negotiating a north American free trade area with the United States and Canada.
All those developments point to a transformation of the prospects for Latin America, by comparison with the gloomier prognosis of the 1980s. Together they have rightly been dubbed "the quiet revolution" by British press commentators. British business, investors and financial markets are all taking notice. We are already one of the largest foreign investors in the region, and are keen to promote more exports.
The British Government are responding energetically to the changes, to strengthen already good relations with Latin America. We have resident United Kingdom-based diplomatic representatives in every continental Latin American country. We are doubling our bilateral development aid during the next few years, albeit from a modest base, and, of the European Community aid programmes to the region of about 200 million ecu per year, we contribute about 20 per cent.
We are strengthening political links. In June, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister became the first holder of his office in history to visit South America, when he made his successful visits to Colombia for talks with President Gaviria and his Ministers, and to Rio, in Brazil, to represent the United Kingdom at the Earth summit. Of course, my right hon. Friend also had talks with President Collor.
In May, my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary visited Mexico, and we look forward to welcoming President Salinas as a guest of the British Government on his visit to London later this month. Last year, the then Secretary of State for Education also visited Mexico, and the then Secretary of State visited Venezuela to launch the Projecto Venezuela to encourage British exports to that valuable market.
We have just started our presidency of the European Community, and during that time we shall do what we can to strengthen the EC's already good relations with Latin America. Those relations are based mainly on the EC dialogues with the Rio group and Central American countries. My right hon. Friend the Minister of State represented the United Kingdom at the annual meetings between the EC and the Central American Ministers in Lisbon in February and Rio group Ministers in Santiago in May. During our presidency, we shall build on those contacts so that the EC can best make its contribution to encouraging development and regional integration in Latin America, the consolidation of democracy and the observance of human rights.
I should like to make some lengthy remarks on the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe, who launched this interesting debate. He mentioned Colombia, with which we enjoy excellent bilateral relations. Inevitably, the successful visit by the Prime Minister in June has enhanced our relationship. The hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley also said that that historic visit was a gesture to remedy the less than dynamic interest in South America that our country had shown for many years, especially in view of our historic relations with that part of the world.
In his talks with President Gavira and senior Colombian Ministers, the Prime Minister agreed that we will continue our co-operation in the important matter of drugs, and that both countries would work towards greater bilateral trade and investment. It was agreed that that would include the proposed signing of an investment promotion and protection agreement. My right hon. Friend also invited the Colombian Minister for Foreign Trade to visit the United Kingdom in the autumn.
Hon. Members will know that, in 1991, BP made a great oil discovery at Cusiana, which was the culmination of nearly five years of exploration work. It represents BP's largest find in the world for more than 20 years. A number of United Kingdom companies have expressed interest in the opportunities presented by that significant discovery.
My hon. Friend also mentioned the ancien regime of Latin America in Cuba and Nicaragua, as it once was. Castro's regime is the best example of the terrible impoverishment that results from bad economic policy. That country is impoverished notwithstanding the enormous subsidy that it received from the Soviet Union for many years. Now that that subsidy has come to an end, its poverty has got even worse. There is no willingness to undertake political reforms, despite recent attempts to attract investment. It is increasingly an anachronism in a region where democracy, with all its difficulties about which we have heard, is none the less almost universal. The persecution of dissidents in Cuba is unacceptable.
My hon. Friend condemned the terrorist campaign of the Sendero Luminoso in Peru, as did the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley.

Mr. Foulkes: The Minister has painted a very one-sided picture of Cuba, which has made substantial advances in health and education and has one of the best literacy rates and health services in Latin America. It is also under great pressure from the economic embargo from the United States. I am not saying that everything in Cuba is wonderful, but there must be a balance in the way that one looks at it, and that balance is not coming from the Foreign Office or from the Minister.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: If a country receives billions of dollars-worth of subsidies from the Soviet Union over many years, it must have something to show for it, and Cuba set up schemes for education and health care. However, it destroyed human rights and failed to develop a market economy or any way to sustain prosperity for its people. It is a country with enormous potential, but it has been ruined since the Castro revolution.
All hon. Members who have spoken mentioned Peru. I recognise that the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley unreservedly condemned the dreadful campaign of Sendero Luminoso. We also condemn the indiscriminate violence in that brutal campaign and the dreadful violence of the Movimiento Revolucionario Tupac AmarU terrorists in their efforts to destabilise Peru. The terrorists clearly intend to exploit the situation for their own ends.
My hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham emphasised the enormous importance of the trade opportunities available to Britain in Latin America. He drew attention to the great importance of the Uruguay round and the GATT negotiations. In that, I heartily concur with him. It was right to point out to the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley the tremendous efforts of the Prime Minister last week in Munich to press this point on our European and other G7 colleagues.

Mr. Foulkes: It was a total failure.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: It may have been a failure, but he made a valiant attempt, and the failure was not his fault.
It is all too easy for forget, and many people do not know, that Latin America accounts for 9 per cent. of the world gross domestic product. Its total GDP is over $1,000 billion, more than the combined GDP of Africa, excluding South Africa, the Indian subcontinent and south-east Asia. Brazil is the eighth largest, and Mexico the 16th largest, economy in the world. The continent is rich in natural resources, with one third of the world's copper and bauxite, 20 per cent. of iron ore, plus vast energy reserves of coal, oil gas and hydro-electric potential. My hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe was right to underline this.
Perhaps I may correct the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley. I think that he said that our trade with Latin America amounted to only 1 per cent. of our —

Mr. Foulkes: No, £1 billion.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: That is right. It was £1·2 billion in 1991, accounting for 2 per cent. of our exports. It is still a small market for us, and it must be improved, but in several markets the United Kingdom is the second largest foreign investor and has been so for a long time. British companies are expanding and making new investments.
I shall now deal with the constitutional position in Peru. On 8 April, together with our European Community partners, we expressed deep concern at President Fujimori's suspension of the constitution rule and reports of human rights violations. Meanwhile, we have suspended the balance of payments assistance promised to President Fujimori during his visit to the United Kingdom.
We can all agree with the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley that the day of the dictators must be over—that is absolutely right. Naturally,

international reactions to events on 5 April were universally critical. Peru's friends in the wider world should work for the earliest possible restoration of Peruvian democracy, as we are doing. It is also important to encourage the efforts of the Organisation of American States in that sphere.
My hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham said that Peru has many problems. The election of the constituent assembly is fundamental to the settlement of Peru's constitutional crisis. It is unfortunate that the elections planned for 18 October have been postponed until 22 November. We believe that there are valid reasons for that. The delay was for practical reasons. It is essential that the elections should be properly organised. However, we will continue to monitor progress, as it is most important that the elections should now proceed without further delay if the Peruvian Government's good faith is not to be challenged.
In developing his thesis about the fragility of democracy in Latin America, the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley referred to Haiti, which was correctly described as French America. With our European Community partners, we support the efforts of the Organisation of American States to work for the return of President Aristide on the basis of the Washington accords.
The hon. Gentleman said that Mr. Mark Bazin was chosen as Prime Minister of the consensus Government, provided for in the tripartite agreement between the illegal regime, the Parliament and the army. He was right to say that the Bazin Cabinet does not represent a true consensus in Haiti. It excludes the pro-Aristide FNCD and the M RN party of Mr. Theodore. It is not clear that Mr. Bazin has the will or the capacity to negotiate a settlement, even were President Aristide to agree to negotiations. We shall press that during our presidency of the European Community.
The hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley also mentioned El Salvador. We are extremely pleased at the progress on the peace process in El Salvador. Credit must be given to the leaders of both Government and FM LN for the fact that they have overcome the obstacles in the implementation of the 16 January agreement. The United Nations, particularly ONUSAL, played a critical role in keeping the two sides talking. There is now a good chance of implementation being completed by the 31 October deadline.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned aid, and asked me to comment on aid for El Salvador. The European Community has pledged 50 million ecu to the reconstruction plan, of which the United Kingdom contributes 20 per cent. I am glad to report that the first group of projects has been approved, including the establishment of a land bank to help the ex-combatants to purchase land. I am also glad that the reconstruction plan recognises the importance of the non-governmental organisations' efforts, which the British Government have long supported.
The hon. Gentleman also cited Chile as a paradoxical example—because of its past, sad history—of a country that has emerged as a modern democracy. Our bilateral relations with Chile have grown in warmth and substance since its smooth and peaceful return to democratic rule in 1989. President Aylwin made a successful visit to Britain in April last year as the guest of the Government. Our contacts with his Government are good and frequent at senior and working level. Chile is a valuable trading


partner. Its liberal market economy is an example to its neighbours and it provides excellent opportunities for British investment. I am glad that more companies are discovering what the Chilean market has to offer.
My hon. Friends the Members for Wycombe and for Gravesham spoke about their proposal for a Latin America conference next year and paid tribute to Canning house, which next year celebrates its 50th anniversary. I am happy to agree with my hon. Friends that Canning house plays a most valuable role in United Kingdom-Latin American relations. I am glad to confirm to my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe that the Foreign and Commonwealth Office will continue its financial contribution of £30,000 in 1992–93. My hon. Friends are discussing with the Secretary of State the imaginative proposal for a Latin American conference in this country next year. Those discussions will continue, and my right hon. Friend will carefully consider the proposal.
I am grateful for this opportunity to review Britain's relations with Latin America. The changes in the region represent an irreversible commitment to progress and reform. Undoubtedly, there will be setbacks, but the general trend is set, and the Government will do what they can to reinforce it. The hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley said that the conditions were ripe for an improvement in relations. They are, and there will be an improvement. He also said that some of our relationships had run out of steam. That is a little inconsistent with his averment of an improvement in relations, which will certainly come about.
The future will provide many more opportunities to strengthen our relations in economics, culture, science and education. We shall certainly work to that end.

Orders of the Day — European Fighter Aircraft

Dr. John Reid: This is another opportunity to discuss a matter that is vital to our industry, to thousands of our workers, and to the future strategic requirements of the British armed forces. We are discussing the provision of the best possible equipment at the best possible cost to the world's best airmen. Therefore, it is fitting to place on record my condolences and those of the whole House to the family of Flight Lieutenant James Henderson who was tragically killed yesterday evening on a training flight in a Buccaneer jet. When I last checked the news agency tapes, his navigator was still missing. I am sure that I speak for the whole House when I say that our thoughts are with the families of both airmen.
In terms of the armed forces in general, the past two years have not been good for the Government. They managed to lose the confidence of many of their Back Benchers over "Options for Change", especially over regimental changes. They found themselves in conflict with the Select Committee on Defence, dominated by Conservative Back Benchers, over the way that the changes were carried out. As I checked the tapes tonight, I saw that in another place Lord Chalfont has criticised the Government's defence policy as being
trapped in a time warp and increasingly out of touch with international realities.
The Minister will be pleased to know we support him this evening, or at least his position on the European fighter aircraft. I say his position because, clearly, it is not necessarily that of the Government as a whole if we are to believe the press reports to which I shall refer later. In all humility, I hope that the support that he has received and will continue to receive from my party for the Ministry of Defence's declared position will be of not insignificant, although not earth-shattering, use to him as he continues the labyrinthine discussions with his ministerial colleagues.
Tonight's debate provides us with a welcome opportunity to discuss more fully the implications of the decision, taken by the German Government some days ago, not to proceed with the production phase of the European fighter aircraft programme. It is especially important that we have this opportunity as, in the past few weeks, there has been a disturbingly large amount of ill-informed comment on the subject not only in some sections of the press but in some sections of the Government.
I hope that it will be useful if I make it plain for those who have commented in the press on the Opposition's position that it does not stem from a knee-jerk reaction which is somehow required of us because of past defence mistakes. While I have the highest regard for the psycho-analytical powers of some commentators in the press, they would be better served studying the objective analysis of future military needs than delving into the supposed psycho-analytical processes of the collective Labour party and its need to prove itself more macho than the Conservatives. I assure the House that that is not the reason we support the continuation of EFA.
Nor do we believe that the continuation of the EFA is only a matter of jobs or of industry. Again, that is a supposition made by people who are usually more sympathetic to my party but who, for some reason, believe


that we could not possibly defend the aircraft because in their analysis—which I believe to be mistaken —of the current military situation, it is no longer required. We do not believe that.
There are two essential points that must be grasped before the relative merits of the project are discussed. First, if the Gulf war taught us nothing else, it taught us that the provision of modern, state-of-the-art air power is an essential ingredient in any successful military operation. It may not be a sufficient condition, but it is increasingly becoming a necessary condition. Therefore, allied air supremacy of itself could not have ended the Iraqi occupation of Kuwait, but it ensured the rapid success of the ground operation with the minimum number of casualties in the shortest possible period.
Secondly, if the United Kingdom is to retain an effective air power capability into the next century, we shall need to undertake a replacement programme for many of our existing aircraft. Anyone who examines the issues objectively must come to that conclusion unless one believes that we no longer need an air force. The RAF's Phantoms and Jaguars, in their respective air defence and offensive support roles, are becoming technically obsolete and will in any case be uneconomic or unsafe to operate by the turn of the century. According to the Select Committee on Defence, our other air defence fighter, the Tornado F3, will also have reached the end of its useful service life by about the year 2005.
As our equipment is approaching obsolescence, we see the development and proliferation—the latter perhaps being the most important—of a new generation of Soviet-made, latterly Russian-made, aircraft with superior avionics, and greater combat effectiveness. The MiG29 is the most frequently mentioned of those aircraft and, although it entered service with the Soviet air force in 1983, it remains a highly potent threat. This should be of interest to those who think that the dissolution of the Soviet Union necessarily means the wholesale dissolution of the hardware which it produced. The countries currently in possession of MiG29s include several with a proven track record of authoritarianism at best and external aggression at worst—I refer to Iraq, Iran, North Korea and Syria.
Although Iraq, for reasons best known to itself and perhaps to some of our airmen, chose not to deploy MiG29s during the Gulf war, it would be naive to assume that they do not pose a considerable threat, or could not be deployed and employed by Iraq, Iran, North Korea or Syria, among others, in future. With the extremely harsh economic conditions being experienced in the former Soviet republics, we must expect—despite our hopes—that these aircraft will become available to other unsavoury clients along with even more sophisticated designs, such as the Su27 and the MiG33.
Those who have argued that the EFA was designed to meet a threat that no longer exists have missed a vital point. The Soviet Union and the Warsaw pact no longer exist but their hardware has not evaporated into thin air. It is being acquired increasingly by regimes whose intentions remain suspect to say the least. We would be failing in our duty if we did not take account of that in future provision for our airmen and airwomen.
The case for a new aircraft that is capable of carrying out both air defence and offensive support missions is

undeniable. It is incumbent on those who argue against the EFA, including those in the Government—there are those in the Treasury who have been muttering behind their collective hands —to say which other options would fulfil the requirement at a lower cost to the public purse or with a better cost-capability. I issue the challenge because it is perhaps easier for me to do so than the Minister, although I know that the Treasury will have noted his long-term commitment to open government. Against that background I have no doubt that the Treasury will be prepared to come out into the open to tell us which option it would prefer if the EFA were not to proceed.
Every authoritative survey has arrived at the same conclusion: each of the available options to the EFA is either less capable or more expensive. Some of the options are both less capable and more expensive. Of the American options, the F15s and F16s are both designs of the 1970s and significantly less capable than the aircraft that the EFA is intended to counter. Similarly, the F18 is regarded as a less capable aircraft. It may even have a higher unit cost than the EFA. The remaining American option, the F22, will not be ready for three or four years after the EFA. It is not designed as a multi-role aircraft and it is expected to cost about 60 per cent. more than the EFA. The F22 is certainly the most capable fighter currently under development—we could have disputes about whether the marginal increase in capability is compatible with the supposed 60 per cent. extra cost—and it is unlikely that the United States Government would allow it to be sold abroad for many years. If they did, it is at least questionable, and perhaps highly suspect, whether they would allow the full array of avionics that accompanies the aircraft to be part of the agreement.
Of the European options. the French Rafale is the most often cited. The French pulled out of the EFA project in 1985 because their requirements for a future fighter differed from ours. The Rafale has therefore been developed primarily as a replacement for the Jaguar in an offensive support role, whereas our priority—mainly but not exclusively—is for an agile air-defence fighter. The Rafale is judged to be a less effective fighter and it is expected to be more expensive than the EFA.
As I watched some of the interviews that took place last week, especially of Conservative Back-Bench Members, I could not help being suspicious that at least some of their opposition to the EFA was because it was a European collaborative project. It seemed that it was becoming deeply embroiled in the Eurosceptic or anti-European section of Tory Back-Bench Members. I hope that I was wrong. I hope that a judgment was being made purely on the basis of future military need, cost and capability. It seemed, however, that some of the comments were inspired by a deep suspicion of anything that smacked of co-operation between European nations.
As I said, of the European options the French Rafale has been most often cited, and I have tried to explain why that would not fit the bill for us. Another favourite solution of the EFA sceptics is that we should buy MiG29s and Su27s from Russia because they are the aircraft that we expect to counter. The flaws in that argument are manifold, but there is one that I put above the rest. It is the duty of the Government and of the House to give our airmen equipment that is better than that of our potential enemies and will offer them more than a 50–50 chance of survival in combat. If, within cost-capability limits, we can produce a fighter that will, by objective standards and


judgments, give an 80–20 chance against MiGs, we would be lacking in our duty to our airmen if we produced one with only a 50–50 chance.
Secondly, while theoretically the purchase of Russian aircraft would undoubtedly be cheaper initially, it may turn out to be a false economy in the longer run. It is now widely recognised that the airframe life of a MiG29 is estimated to be as little as one third of the airframe life of an EFA. It is also said that the MiG29 is much more expensive to maintain and purchasing countries have already experienced significant problems obtaining spare parts. There appears to be no doubt that long-term servicing support for MiG29s —or, indeed, any other MiG—would be highly suspect.
Surely the most absurd idea that we have heard over the past two or three weeks is that we should begin to develop from scratch what has become known as a lighter, cheaper aircraft. Given that the whole point of the exercise would be to save money, and given that the £5 billion spent so far on developing EFA would be wasted, the argument cannot stand up under the weight of its own contradictions. Not only would we end up with a less capable aircraft, which would probably cost us more, but it would not be ready for service until many years after the withdrawal of those that it is supposed to replace. Whichever way we look at it, we are driven to the same conclusion—the EFA is the best option available. Surveys show that it is second only to the F22 in fleet and combat effectiveness, and in cost-effectiveness it has a clear lead over the F22.
Those who have argued for abandonment of the EFA have palpably failed to make a credible case for any alternative programme. As I said earlier, the only sustainable argument that they could make is that we do not really need an air force. If they maintain that we do, the obligation is upon them—commentators, the Treasury, Back Benchers, political analysts and military strategists—to tell us how we could possibly achieve an equally effective fighter at a lesser cost with guaranteed servicing, and which would meet the requirement of the Royal Air Force. They have failed to make any credible case on any of those points for any alternative programme.
Even if we could achieve the savings sometimes imagined —and they are imagined —they would be dwarfed in public expenditure terms by the devastating effect that they would have on the British economy. I have tried to make plain our view that we base that not purely on either jobs or industry, but also on military and defence requirements. It would be wrong to make the case for the EFA purely or even primarily on the basis of its effect on employment. We should not fall into a trap of seeing defence procurement as some sort of grand job creation scheme. I hope that I have made clear the overwhelming strategic case for the continuation of the EFA programme.
However, it would be equally wrong of us wholly to exclude economic considerations from the equation, especially as the case against the EFA is supposed to be financial—at least in the arguments of many of those who oppose it. There is not a British-made alternative to the EFA. Any foreign import, even one that involves some workshare arrangement, would lead to the loss of tens of thousands of mainly skilled jobs. In what possible sense would that lead to budgetary savings for the Treasury or the Government?
We welcome recent orders won for the airbus by British industry but, notwithstanding that, the loss of the EFA would be a major disaster for our aerospace industry. We

are talking not only about the loss of thousands of jobs, but about the loss of an entire industry; an industry of vital strategic importance to Britain. If the EFA programme is abandoned and we are forced to import the next generation of fighters from abroad, we risk destroying our aerospace industry altogether, civil as well as military, because the two are inextricably interlinked. To put ourselves at the mercy of foreign suppliers for all time and pay for the privilege would serve neither our security nor our economic interests.
There may be a case for adjustment of the original numbers of EFAs ordered, and there may even be a dispute between the Government and the Opposition Front-Bench spokesmen when we come to discuss those numbers—it is widely recognised that there may well be some adjustment to those numbers because the original calculations were made in about 1986 and the world has moved on—and while I would urge the Minister to continue in his efforts to keep the costs of the EFA down, because, obviously, every time we can reduce the cost, the cost capability factor is far more beneficial from everyone's point of view, it remains the Opposition's view that the continuation of the programme is vital for our defence needs and represents the most economical option available.
If any other option met our defence needs and requirements, saved those numbers of jobs and advanced an industry which is not only strategic but at the forefront of technology, the Opposition, like anyone else, would be prepared to accept it. Thus far, that alternative has not been put forward by anyone inside or outside the House, and until we see it we shall continue to support the Ministry of Defence and trust that we shall be able to ensure that the EFA will be produced and eventually supplied to the Royal Air Force.

Mr. John Wilkinson: We all owe a debt of gratitude to the hon. Member for Motherwell, North (Dr. Reid) for introducing this important debate. He has, as is his wont, done much research and produced thoughtful and cogent arguments in favour of pursuing the European fighter aircraft programme to a successful conclusion whereby it is purchased by Her Majesty's Government to enter service with the Royal Air Force, where I am sure that it will fulfil an invaluable and essential function.
It is a comment on our somewhat arcane parliamentary practices that a debate on the single most important military procurement issue of our time should take place in the middle of the night by virtue of an initiative of this kind under the Consolidated Fund Bill. It would have been better if we had been able to have the two-day defence debate before the summer recess. Over the years, I have always argued that the White Paper should be published as near to the spring as possible. In that way we could have a debate before we all disappeared for the recess and if there were a major issue hanging over us, as is the case now with the future of EFA, we could dispose of it in a proper manner and in the right time scale.
I do not wish to be over-critical because, by our presence in the long watches of the night, we have shown that we seek not so much to be in our beds but to be vigilant and evidently concerned for the future defence of our country and our country's defence industrial base.
That said, I must wholeheartedly welcome my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State's robust reply to the private notice question on Tuesday, following the visit to the United Kingdom of the Defence Minister of the Federal German Republic, Herr Volker Rae. I thought that my right hon. and learned Friend's replies were admirable. They showed an unequivocal personal commitment—as well as an unequivocal commitment on the part of the Ministry—to this important programme. They also showed a clear determination to take on all corners, from the Treasury or from other quarters, who might make his life difficult over the future of the European fighter aircraft, the Panther, or Panthera, as I prefer to call it.
The German Government's decision to withdraw from the production of the project once the development phase has been completed poses a challenge to us, but we may well obtain commensurate benefits. I hope that the production process will be rationalised. The proliferation of assembly lines and flight test centres never made much sense; nor did the strong desire—which was put into effect —to re-invent the management wheel by having a Eurofighter organisation in addition to the Panavia one. Eurofighter could have grown organically from Panavia, as the Airbus consortium was able to produce a whole family of Airbus aeroplanes. The creation of a NATO European Fighter Management Agency, NEFMA, when there was already a NATO Aircraft Management Agency, NAMA, to manage Tornado also struck me as unnecessary.
Those are little quibbles relating to the past, however. We must now show that there is a requirement which really needs to be met. There is a strong temptation to be project-led—to be so keen to replace particular aeroplanes, in this case the Phantom, the Jaguar and the Tornado F3, that we lose strategic perspective and may forget what we are actually seeking to do. We are seeking to procure for the United Kingdom—and, we hope, for our Italian and Spanish friends, and the Germans if they come to their senses—the most flexible instrument to project military power, not only within the NATO theatre but, if need be, outside it, to deter aggression and to secure our commercial and strategic interests and our security.
In recent years, we have seen—from Korea through the Arab-Israeli wars, through the Falklands conflict to the Gulf campaign—that air power is critical to the security of the west and for the preservation of our values and our way of life. Consciously to forgo the most effective instrument available to us for the pursuit of such a strategy would indeed be perverse.
I go so far as to say that if the worst comes to the worst we ought to be prepared as a nation to build EFA alone. I hope that our Ministers will, by means of good diplomacy and by maintaining effective collaboration, make certain that the Italians and the Spanish stay in the programme. If not, however, I believe that the industrial and military stakes are so high that we ought ultimately to be prepared to go it alone. In the last analysis, there is no task more crucial than preserving the peace and defending the integrity of these islands. We discovered that just over 50 years ago, at the time of the battle of Britain, and the lessons learnt then are just as real today.
In the 1920s and 1930s, there were those who thought that we could afford to disarm. They were disabused of the idea in a most painful way—it was a close-run thing.
As the gestation time of modern combat aircraft is so long, it behoves us to make the appropriate dispositions now, and not to throw away the advantage that we have gained from all the time, effort and investment already put into the development phase. Nor do I believe that we should allow the Swedes and the French a virtual monopoly in western Europe of the construction capability for high performance military aircraft. We should stay in the business ourselves.
There may have to be commensurate savings in the defence budget, because at a time of negative growth it will not be easy for the Treasury to provide additional funds. If so, we ought to look to where the problem lies—to Germany itself. If the German Defence Minister is correct, then the threat to his country in central Europe is greatly diminished by the end of the cold war, the break-up and dissolution of the Warsaw pact, and the disintegration of the Soviet Union into its constituent republics, many of which now have values similar to our own. If that changes the security situation in central Europe so dramatically, especially if the Russians withdraw from eastern Germany and Poland on schedule—and ultimately, one earnestly hopes, from the Baltic states, too—any savings necessary should be made in the forces we intend to maintain in Germany. Those forces are relatively inflexible and costly in foreign exchange, whereas a combat aircraft is infinitely flexible. It is essential for the defence of these islands and it can be projected rapidly around the globe to wherever it is required. The same cannot be said of tanks by the banks of the Rhine.
I repeat that we owe the hon. Member for Motherwell, North a debt of gratitude, and that we appreciate the firm and rational stance of the Government to date. I shall not repeat the arguments so well expressed by the hon. Member for Motherwell, North, but I will express my personal commitment to the success of the programme. I want to see the Panther flying in Royal Air Force colours and, it is to be hoped, in Italian and Spanish colours—perhaps even in German colours, too. I believe that it will sell in substantial numbers around the globe, because there is no other aeroplane in its class.

Mr. Keith Mans: I am grateful for the opportunity to say a few words in the debate, and I reiterate the congratulations offered by my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson) to the hon. Member for Motherwell, North (Dr. Reid) on securing the debate and allowing us to discuss this important topic, even at this late hour. I am grateful that the project has cross-party support. Its chances of going ahead are greater as a result of that support.
Over the decades aircraft projects have always had a drama and excitement about them, and not a little political controversy, too. I remember most poignantly from the past the TSR2 project. I joined the Air Force four months before the aircraft was cancelled—I, together with a number of others, had been recruited specifically to fly it. I saw it fly once, then it was cancelled by the incoming Labour Government.
I recently read Lord Jenkins's autobiography, and until then I had not appreciated how close the decision was on


whether to cancel TSR2 or Concorde. One reason that the former course was chosen was that the TSR2 was a national project and Concorde a collaborative project. The latter may, by their very nature, be difficult to devise initially, but once the partners have been assembled, the contract makes it difficult for them to pull out. That is how it should be. Aircraft contracts span decades, whereas Governments and individual politicians have much shorter lives.
As to the EFA, we are currently tightly tied—as are the three other nations—to its development phase. Its cost is about £7 billion, split between the four partners dependent upon the number of aircraft that they said at the beginning that they wanted to purchase. Thirty three per cent. of that cost will be borne by ourselves, the same percentage by the Germans, 21 per cent. by the Italians and the remainder by the Spanish.
Many billions of pounds have already been spent by the German Government on developing the EFA. They and the new German Defence Minister, Herr Volker Rühe, make it clear that Germany intends to remain in the programme. Herr Rühe pointed that out to me on Monday, when he confirmed that the first prototype will take off from a German airfield at the beginning of next year.
Given that the Germans will remain in the programme —which lasts until 1998—they will spend more than £2 billion developing an aircraft that they accept they will not put into production. It is worth bearing in mind that they do not have to decide until midway through next year—when all four partners will determine whether to go ahead with the EFA's production, dependent on the progress of the development programme and, more specifically, how the aircraft flies.
I believe that most right hon. Members agree that that picture is very different from the one painted by the newspapers over the past two weeks. If one believed the leader writers, even in the better newspapers, one would think that Germany had totally withdrawn from the project. Nothing could be further from the truth. At the very time that those words were being printed, the Bundestag had voted £300 million in this coming year's federal budget for the EFA's further development.
In analysing why Herr Rühe said that Germany would not produce the aircraft, it is worth considering the original requirement. I will not reiterate the points made by the hon. Member for Motherwell, North but I will add to them. Despite the German Defence Minister's comments, I believe that the requirement itself is more relevant today than in 1985, and not, as the Germans would have us believe, the other way round.
Built into the EFA requirement was not only the need to move out of area but sufficient range to deal with threats—particularly in Africa and the middle east. That was prompted not only by us but by the Italians and Spaniards, who said that their countries were threatened just as much from the south as from the east. If nothing else, that demonstrates the problem of analysing the German's present position.
The Germans maintain that, because the threat has changed, there is no longer a need for such a large, long-range aircraft. However, one could argue that, as a result of the changing threat, there is a greater need for such an aircraft.
If the threat is less than before, we must bear in mind that the capacity —the aircraft opposing NATO which

EFA was designed to deter—has not changed. As the hon. Member for Motherwell, North said, the MiG27s, MiG29s, Su27s and MiG33s are increasingly being dispersed around the rim of the Mediterranean. That is a potent potential threat.
If the German Government honestly believe that they can meet that threat, which they will have to in the NATO context, with a smaller, lighter and inferior aircraft, they have got their calculations totally wrong. When the German Defence Minister made that point, he also said that the rest of the German armed forces—apart from the Luftwaffe—would have to become more mobile and more able to move to the peripheries of NATO and, provided that they changed their constitution, even beyond the edge of NATO.
I believe that there is a big conflict between what the German Defence Minister said and the reality of the next five or 10 years. A much more rational reason for the German decision is that it is based on short-term politics and, more specifically, the popularity of the Christian Democratic Union and, in financial terms, the problems that it will have with the budget over the next two or three years in respect of reunification. I believe that the smaller, lighter aircraft is simply a paper exercise to keep the German aerospace industry quiet.
The hon. Member for Motherwell, North made a very good point about the alternatives. Looking at the other options and off-the-shelf purchases—the only option for the Germans if they do not want the EFA—I agree with the hon. Member. If we analyse the alternatives aircraft by aircraft, none of them comes up to the EFA's specifications. The exception is the F22, but that is very expensive. The newspapers failed to point out that the F22 is not actually for sale. It contains much technology that the Americans would not like any nation—and certainly not the Germans and the others—to take on board just yet. The F22 is not an alternative to the EFA.
I want now to consider some of the consequences of the German withdrawal from the production phase of the project. The programme is going to be disrupted. A four-nation programme, with all the involved management referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood, is bound to be disrupted if 33 per cent. of the project is removed. That will cause problems, particularly in respect of the teams that have been brought together for specific purposes, for example, in respect of the fly-by-wire system and the compressor for the engine, both of which are the responsibility of the German contingent.
However, savings can be made by reducing the tooling up of a reduced number of production lines. A larger number of contracts can be awarded based on cost rather than work-share arrangements. There should be consider-able savings in respect of the project's cost that fully outweigh the smaller production which will increase costs. The two should balance out: the smaller production line against the cost reductions, because fewer units will be needed.
There is another point: if we decided that one of the member states had to leave the project in order to keep the costs down, we would choose the Germans because their production costs are between 20 and 25 per cent. higher than ours and those of the Italians.
We can produce the aircraft as cheaply or nearly as cheaply without the Germans as we can with them. Equally, the reasons for the Germans withdrawing do not


relate to the other two countries that remain with us in the project. They do not have the same problems with budgets and reunifications. They also stated in their original specifications that they need an aircraft with a longer range that can operate over the Mediterranean. There is no reason at the moment to suggest that either of the other two countries would, in any foreseeable circumstances, want to withdraw from the project.
What should we do now? We should do very little. We are in the development programme. No decisions have to be made about the production programme until midway through next year. All that we have to do is sit tight. By all means, we should listen to any suggestions from Germany about the new lighter, inferior fighter, but I strongly recommend my hon. Friend the Minister to ask for further and better particulars of that aircraft, just to see what it actually amounts to. Bearing in mind the stringent economic requirements put on it by the German Defence Minister, that it will cost the same as the EFA and, taking into account the remaining development funds available in the programme, we will end up with a brand new Hawk 200 as a result of that exercise. We are still developing the EFA, the Germans are still paying for it, and, half way through next year it will become only too clear that the production of the EFA is the most cost-effective solution for the Royal Air Force and the other two air forces remaining in the project.
Like the hon. Member for Motherwell, North, I have not based my argument on employment or technology reasons. Those matters are important in my area of Lancashire, where jobs and technology are at stake. British Aerospace is the high-tech part of Lancashire. Without it, we would be in a sorry state. The project represents the right aircraft for the three air forces. I end on a personal note. I have mentioned factories around Preston. I have flown every aircraft that those factories have produced and that the Air Force has bought since the war—the Canberra, the Lightning, the Jaguar and the Tornado. I have no doubt that, when British Aerospace gets around to producing a two-seater, I shall be able to have a trip in that as well.

Mr. Julian Brazier: Like my hon. Friends, I congratulate the hon. Member for Motherwell, North (Dr. Reid) on initiating the debate and on his well-informed and well-researched speech. We have heard three excellent speeches, and I do not want to duplicate the points that have already been made. I should like, first, to dig a little deeper into the German question—what exactly is the German stance on the EFA and what implications does it have'? Secondly, I shall refer briefly to the case for the EFA and, thirdly, discuss where we go from here in a slightly wider context.
In several speeches on defence procurement, I have tried to stress that the spirit of a defence contract is as important as the letter. For example, even with an ordinary national contract, it is important in respect of intellectual property rights that, if a certain company has developed a good idea, even if the idea is the property of the Ministry of Defence, it is almost always right to let the company that has come up with it go as far as the production phase, because it will do it best. That means

that there is an added incentive for excellence in the industry. We saw the best form of spirit coming out of our defence contractors in the Falklands war and the Gulf conflict, with the extra mile and the extra mile beyond the extra mile to which they were willing to go in supporting British armed forces.
The central problem with the EFA project is the fact that the Germans have so manifestly breached the spirit that lies behind the contract, and breached it in a fashion that we should find profoundly worrying in ways that go well beyond the contract.
In order to see the size of the breach, we have to look, as my hon. Friend the Member for Wyre (Mr. Mans) has just done, at the words of Chancellor Kohl and Herr Volker Rühe and their approach to the project. They have continuously reminded us of the disjunction and the great change in Europe as a result of the collapse of the Soviet Union. They and, indeed, the press have made many references to the terrifically changed climate in Germany. There is overwhelming opposition among the German people and in their Parliament to the project.
However, no serious effort has been made to address the military position. If the EFA is not appropriate, what is appropriate? I have heard nothing from any German source about what possible threat any aircraft that could be purchased for the Luftwaffe, even only the Hawk 200, would be supposed to face. We certainly have not heard any discussion of what aeroplanes such an aircraft could expect to face. We now hear that the Germans are seeking a new format for which there is no intellectual basis whatever.
The problem for Britain is that our most important European ally appears to have closed its eyes completely. The Germans are fulfilling the letter of the contract. They are paying a lot of money to complete the development. But we have to realise that by withdrawing from the production phase because of sheer emotion—to put it bluntly, sheer political pressure—without making any effort to examine the military rationale for any subsequent course of action, the Germans have changed. That is important.
Germany has been overwhelmingly the most important continental European prop for NATO in the past. It is also the paymaster of the EC. In the past generation, while the French have been in "internal exile" within NATO—nominally a member but outside the command—Britain and America have looked to Germany as the main continental prop for NATO. The fact that the Germans have treated the most important collaborative venture within European NATO in this fashion has profound consequences for foreign as well as defence policy. We must address those consequences.
My second question goes back to back with the German issue. Why do we need the European fighter aircraft'? We have heard cogent expositions already in the speeches of my hon. Friends the Members for Wyre and for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson) and the hon. Member for Motherwell, North. We must remember how dangerous the world is. Two conflicts are going on side by side in Yugoslavia. In Moldova a bloody little war is going on which is not being reported on television screens. Fighting in Azerbaijan continues sporadically. Nuclear technology is spreading into Algeria, Libya, Syria and Iraq.
We do not know how long Boris Yeltsin will last. Mr Gorbachev disappeared in a hurry. We can only admire


Boris Yeltsin for the way in which he overcame the coup, but he may not last long and, if he does not, we do not know who his successors will be. Of course, the military capability remains in Russia. A formidable array of aircraft remains in Russia, as well as all the countries to which the Russians have sold them.
In Britain we are trying to make a desperately difficult decision. A substantial peace dividend has been extracted from our defence budget in the past five years. The percentage of gross domestic product that we spend on defence has fallen by a quarter in the past five years.
What should be our approach to the EFA? I share the view of my hon. Friends the Members for Wyre and for Ruislip-Northwood and the hon. Member for Motherwell, North that we must have the EFA. We must have it ultimately for the reason expressed by Enoch Powell in an article in The Field, which has been largely overlooked. He said that if one has only a limited amount of money which cannot possibly cover all the commitments and all the things that we should like to buy, one must give priority to projects with the longest lead time for rebuilding. In reality, that means that the Air Force comes first, the Navy second and the Army last—I come from a long line of soldiers—and land forces have to put a greater reliance on reserves.
In a modern world, in which aerospace technology has travelled so far, armed forces without a modern fighter are not worth having. That is the central case for having a modern aeroplane. and the only one on offer that can fit the bill, I am afraid, is the EFA. That is why I share the view that my hon. Friend the Member for Wyre has just articulated so clearly, that even if we have to go it alone on the EFA, it is worth doing.
I also endorse the remarks of my hon. Friends the Members for Wyre and for Ruislip-Northwood when they said that many of the extra costs associated with a shorter production run can be balanced by eliminating the vast amount of extra work involved in trying to produce the parts in four different places, and with the vast costs in paperwork and inefficiencies in project management that stem from being based in four different languages and places. The biggest loss through costs of scale is in the development phase, which we do not have to worry about. The case for going ahead with the EFA is overwhelming.
On the industrial and defence side, we must go ahead with the EFA. It can be done within a reasonable price. We must be clear that if we go ahead with the project, within a shrunken defence budget, the Royal Air Force must look to other areas to save money, because it has not suffered the same cuts in manpower as the other two services. The manpower of the Army and Navy is so overstretched that it is beginning seriously to affect the morale of soldiers and sailors, who see their families more and more rarely. The Air Force must take its share of manpower cuts to help to pay for this machine.
I hope and believe that we shall build the aircraft, but we must not lose sight of the frightening wider implications of the German withdrawal from the EFA. The fact that the country has so strongly, emotionally and irrationally turned against the project, and that the German leadership has buckled in the face of political pressure, should worry us severely.
There is no Consolidated Fund debate on Yugoslavia, although a British warship has been sent, and British troops are on the ground there in various non-combatant roles; and at a time when emotions, largely stemming from

Germany, persuaded the countries of the west—wrongly, in my view—to recognise Croatia, it should worry us that our most important European ally is apparently being driven by emotion. I welcome the Government's stance. I shall not stray too far from the strict confines of the debate, but I welcome the sensible and cautious view that the British Government are taking on developments in Yugoslavia.
During the next few weeks and months it will be important for us to remember that we are dealing with an ally whose attitude towards defence has changed profoundly, and their attitude to foreign policy too. I fear. A great deal may be required of our political leadership during the next few months to keep rational thinking alive in Europe, and to remain strong in our capabilities and cautious in our willingness to use them. It looks as though Britain may have to adopt that role, as the only country in western Europe which still espouses what used to be the view of NATO as a whole—that we do not want to deploy force unless we have to, but we have the force there if we need it. That has been the traditional NATO stance, and I am glad that it remains British policy. I am also glad that we are firmly committed to developing the EFA.

Mr. Nigel Evans: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Motherwell, North (Dr. Reid) for instigating the debate. In common with those who have already spoken, I shall not put the case for the EFA simply on the grounds of jobs. We would be insane, however, if we did not recognise the jobs and skills implications behind any decision. Should the Germans decide not to continue with production, which looks increasingly likely, they will make a false economy if they look for a cheaper aircraft.
This week Volker Rühe addressed Members of the House and I was singularly unimpressed with his arguments for not continuing with the production of the EFA. I am proud that we have participated in a project that will produce an aircraft with the technology suited to the next century.
I am not sure whether the hon. Member for Motherwell, North included me when he spoke of some hon. Members who have doubts about European union and who see the EFA problem as a reason for not going ahead with that. I should much prefer to see four countries acting in unison to produce the aircraft so that we retain a defence capability which can compete with the Americans and the Russians. It would be a mistake and short-sighted to argue that we should buy our equipment off the shelf from the Americans and the Russians. Such a decision would have dangerous implications for defence and our defence equipment manufacturing capability.
Hon. Members will know that British Aerospace has a factory in my constituency. Many of its workers would feel that their jobs were under threat should the Germans pull out. Given the all-party support for the project, I cannot imagine that the Government would decide to pull out of it. But were that to happen, imagine how difficult it would be to build up our skills base again once it had been lost. If the Germans decide to buy their aircraft off the shelf from another country, they will be exporting German jobs and future skills to other countries.
I strongly believe that one gets what one pays for, no matter what it is. Volker Rühe said that one must decide


what one can afford to pay and then discover what one can get. That is an extremely naive approach. When it comes to the defence of the European alliance, the last thing one wants to do is to end up with an aircraft that is less capable than that of one's aggressor. That is what would happen were we to choose a less capable aircraft.
I was proud to visit Germany recently with colleagues from all parties to try to persuade our German parliamentarians of the need to continue the EFA project. Many of them appreciated the need for the EFA and were searching for ways in which to continue in that project. They know that, like Britain, Germany will need a replacement aircraft sooner rather than later. If we can act in unison on that project that would benefit all of us.
My hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier) mentioned that much has changed in the past three years and said how easily things could change again. Who could have predicted the break-up of the Soviet Union in such a short time? Who can say what will happen over the eight years that it will take us to reach the year 2000? We need to be prepared for all eventualities. There have been options to save and I am sure that all parties have looked at them. However, there is no option to axe. We should all work as hard as we can to persuade those who need to be persuaded—whether it is the Germans or people on our own side—of the need for the EFA project to continue, and of the fact that this is the best course for Britain and the best course for Europe.

Mr. Harold Elletson: I, too, am grateful to the hon. Member for Motherwell. North (Dr. Reid) for drawing this issue to the attention of the House, because it is one which concerns the large number of my constituents who work at British Aerospace plants in Lancashire. I want to pick up on one or two of the comments made by my hon. Friends the Members for Wyre (Mr. Mans) and for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier). In doing so. I pay tribute to the remarkable all-party campaign mounted in defence of the European fighter aircraft project, largely through the efforts of my hon. Friend the Member for Wyre.
My hon. Friend mentioned what he perceived as being the main underlying political reason for the German withdrawal—that the German Government think that the threat in Europe and the world has changed. That is right, but it has not diminished, and the German Government seem not to be sufficiently aware of that point. The House has a great understanding of the tremendous insecurity that has arisen in Europe as a result of the break-up of the former Soviet Union. We can all cite areas—Moldova, the Baltic states, the Ukraine, Azerbaijan, the various Muslim states—n which conflict could arise at any moment for a number of reasons which we cannot, perhaps, immediately call to mind but which make the whole region unstable.
What is even more worrying than the growing political instability in the region is the other issue which has resulted from the break-up of the Soviet Union—the proliferation of the sale of former Soviet Union military technology, advice, hardware and expertise to out-of-area countries, particularly third world countries. I am aware, as I am sure my hon. Friend the Minister is aware, of a number of recent instances of former Soviet military and

security service personnel being involved in the sale of nuclear materials and military technology, advice and hardware to third world states which we would regard as unsavoury.
What worries me about the German Government's attitude is that they seem not to be taking any notice of the dangers inherent in the situation. They seem not to understand the responsibility that we in Europe have for the defence of freedom out of area. That is something which is always at the forefront of our thinking, and this attitude leads one to question the German Government's motives, as my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury said.
What underlies the fears of my hon. Friends about the German Government's withdrawal from the EFA project is the suspicion that it is part of a somewhat wider shift in German foreign policy which may lead them not to amend their constitution to allow German armed forces to take part in out-of-area activities with NATO. That must be of great concern to the House because if that is right, we should know about it. We should question the German Government in detail about that. Will my hon. Friend the Minister give that matter careful consideration and make our concerns known to the German Government?

Mr. Bill Walker: I shall be brief as I have come from Committee. I share the views of my hon. Friends the Members for Wyre (Mr. Mans) and for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson) who, like me, wore the light blue uniform of the Royal Air Force earlier in their lives. There is no question but that RAF crews, particularly pilots, would expect the RAF to have an aircraft that could compete on at least favourable, if not better, terms with an opposition aircraft that they were likely to meet in the skies.
No one denies the fact that the RAF requires an air superiority, agile aircraft. Some people suggest that we should buy the F22, which is a fine aircraft. Whether the Americans will ever sell it to anyone must be questionable, but even if they were to, it is an expensive aeroplane and is probably much more sophisticated than we require. I doubt whether we shall ever fight the Americans, so that aircraft will not be an enemy aircraft. The likely enemy aircraft are those that have their origins in the former Soviet Union, and they will become more available in those parts of the world where we would rather they were not.
Experience in the Gulf demonstrated clearly that if one has command of the skies, the ground casualties can be relatively light. The RAF must have the European fighter aircraft for that reason, if no other. But there is also the issue of Britain's base in the aerospace industry, and the high technology involved in manufacturing the EFA, particularly technology in the use of composite materials, is something that we abandon at our peril. In addition, the aircraft will carry modern avionics and a range of weapon systems. Therefore, there is no question but that the RAF needs the EFA. The doubters should remember that, in 1940 the Luftwaffe would have been delighted to have bought the Spitfire, and I judge that, in future, it would be happy to buy the EFA.

The Minister of State for Defence Procurement (Mr. Jonathan Aitken): This has been a debate remarkable for its quality, expertise and thoughtfulness, and I shall do my best to respond to the—

Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): Order. The Minister requires the leave of the House to speak again. I am sure that it will be granted, but we must go through the motions.

Mr. Aitken: With the leave of the House, I should like to begin by associating the Government and the House with the kind and thoughtful words of condolence that the hon. Member for Motherwell, North (Dr. Reid) expressed to the families of the late Flight Lieutenant Henderson and his missing navigator. They were the crew members of the Buccaneer that so sadly crashed on training earlier today. I know that the House will wish to join in those expressions of sympathy for the families of those who lost their lives in that tragic accident.
The hon. Gentleman began by drawing attention to the unity of view of the two Front Bench teams on the EFA. That unity is valuable, much appreciated and remarkable for the Labour party. The EFA was planned as a peacekeeper, but I am sure that, even in their wildest dreams, its designers did not think that, long before it flew, it would become a peacekeeper for the Labour party, whose defence policies have hitherto been more notable for discord than for harmony. However, I do not wish to look a gift horse in the mouth and I thank the hon. Gentleman for initiating the debate. He showed sound military and strategic sense. I agreed with almost every word that he said.
I thank my hon. Friends the Members for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson), for Wyre (Mr. Mans), for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans), for Blackpool, North (Mr. Elletson) and for Tayside. North (Mr. Walker) for their contributions. It has been a debate of experts. We have heard a wealth of aviation, military, Anglo-German and Lancastrian expertise.
The calm and thoughtful nature of the debate is in sharp contrast to much of the debate outside, because many commentators seem to be flying by the seat of their pants, often through a fog of ignorance about an aircraft that has not yet flown.
My hon. Friends spoke about the threat to which the EFA is being built to respond. My hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood put it well when he said that air power is critical for the security of the west. The international security environment has changed radically since the EFA was originally conceived. The direct threat posed by the Warsaw pact and the Soviet Union has disappeared. However, the EFA will be in service throughout the first quarter of the next century and the world could be a very different place by 2020. That is why it is important to look at capabilities rather than intentions and at a realistic assessment of the scenarios that might unfold on the international scene over the next quarter of a century.
We all recognise that there is considerable and growing instability in areas adjacent to NATO within and outside Europe. There is ethnic and territorial conflict in eastern Europe and within the former Soviet Union, where the race between the new democracy and a return to the old despotism with new faces could yet be close run.
The middle east remains unpredictable and, despite the collapse of the former monolithic threat posed by the Soviet Union, there still exists a number of risks to security and the United Kingdom could be involved in joint military action with our allies designed to promote stability or halt aggression. It is essential for our armed forces to be fully equipped to cope with any emergency requiring military intervention.
My hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, North spoke about large numbers of sophisticated aircraft being sold around the world. There has been a widespread export drive. The MiG29 Fulcrum has been delivered to all former Warsaw pact countries except Hungary and to some other countries including Cuba, Iraq, Iran, Syria, North Korea and former Yugoslavia. The Su27 Flanker has been sold to China. The Russians are also developing new fighters, including improved variants of the Su27 and the MiG29 which could be exported. Observant hon. Members may have read in the technical press of a recent briefing by the Mikoyan design bureau about the remarkable capabilities of the MiG33. Many sophisticated American aircraft have also been sold in the middle east and elsewhere.
Against that background, an aircraft of EFA's capability is essential to match potential threat aircraft. We need to provide an effective defence of the UK and of British forces wherever they may be deployed. Our current air defence aircraft, the Tornado F3, was designed to intercept bombers at long range. It does not have the agility to defeat hostile agile fighters in the former Soviet arsenal. It is not a suitable match for aircraft such as the MiG29 and Su27, let alone future upgrades of these types or even more modern Russian aircraft.
Thus there is a need for an agile aircraft with a modern radar, other sensors to enable it to exploit modern weapons, and a sophisticated electronic warfare suite to enable it to survive. Today's greater emphasis on NATO rapid reaction forces reinforces the case for a multi-role capability. Multi-role aircraft should offer economies in support and operational flexibility. It is not surprising, therefore, that the chiefs of air staff of the four EFA partner nations, including Germany, reaffirmed as recently as 10 March that they considered that the requirement for an aircraft of the EFA's capabilities was still valid.
The recent visit of Herr Rühe has attracted much comment in the debate. As the House is aware, Herr Rühe, the German Defence Minister, visited London on 6 July. He told my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State and myself that Germany did not intend to proceed with the production of the EFA and would like to redirect the unspent EFA development money to the construction of a completely new smaller aircraft with much lower production costs for delivery about the end of the century, just two years after the date planned for the EFA. The Germans wish that activity to be undertaken collaboratively by the present EFA partners and perhaps also France. He confirmed, however, that Germany would nevertheless honour its obligations under the memorandum of understanding to complete the remainder of the present development phase which will continue until 1999.
Herr Rühe cited two reasons for his interest in a new but less capable aircraft. First, he said that Germany would have difficulty accommodating the cost of producing the EFA in its budget, alongside the heavy expenditure it faces for reconstruction of the former GDR. Secondly, he considers that since the threat of a massive


Warsaw pact attack, against which the EFA was originally designed, has completely disappeared, an aircraft of the EFA's capability is now an anachronism.
I found Herr Rühe a captivating and charismatic political personality, but I thought that his EFA Lite thinking—as it is known—was seriously flawed on economic and military grounds. As I listened to him, his performance reminded me of what is perhaps one of the most dramatic moments in Wagner's great opera "Das Rheingold" when Donner, the god of lightning and thunder strides on to the stage with a hammer which he whirls above his head. He brings it down on the anvil with an ear-splitting crash and, at that moment, the clouds roll away, there is clarity in the sky and the shining Valhalla appears. One realises that a great moment of truth has arrived. The difference with Herr Rate's performance is that his hammer blow had the opposite effect to Milner's: instead of the clouds rolling away, there was a thickening of the clouds; instead of clarity, there was obscurity; and instead of the shining Valhalla or EFA, one could see only an absurd spatchcock political contraption known as EFA Lite.
My hon. Friend the Member for Wyre was right to pour a little political scorn on the nature of a fairly transparent device. The smaller aircraft that Herr Rühe is proposing could not, using present technology, possibly provide the performance needed in the air defence role to match potential threat aircraft. There is no point in building an aircraft which cannot do the job that we require of it. If we introduced EFA Lite, the old SAS motto "Who dares wins" would create a new motto for the RAF, "Who flies loses". We would be sending our pilots up, destined to lose in combat.
Moreover, it is unrealistic on financial grounds to think that, given the seven years and £5 billion which we have jointly already effectively spent on the development of the EFA, developing a completely new aircraft could be any cheaper than continuing with the present EFA airframe and engine combination or that it could be done in half the time of the EFA programme. We would have to go back to the drawing board. It would mean throwing away the EFA prototypes and engines and repeating much of the development work which, together with the preliminary studies, has taken us seven years to reach the present point.
What Herr Rühe is suggesting is likely to result in an inferior product, some five to eight years later than the EFA and costing more rather than less. It would be like building an expensive loser, and I think that that description would stand even if we followed the good advice of my hon. Friend the Member for Wyre and sought further and better particulars. I think the more we got of those further and better particulars, the more we would find that my description and that of many hon. Members was correct.
I shall say a word about the costs, which are central to the project. The EFA is admittedly an expensive programme. The United Kingdom's share of development amounts to about £2·7 billion and if we were to buy 250 aircraft, which is the number we forecast at the start of the programme, it would cost us another £9 billion for production. Therefore, there is a common interest on the part of all four partners in getting the costs down. We are determined to do just that, but, before Germany's decision

not to proceed to the production of the EFA, we had agreed to seek ways to reduce the costs of the programme to make it affordable to all the partners.
The German Ministry of Defence is not unique in having pressures on its budget. We have already made encouraging progress in identifying savings, and industry had unilaterally offered a 5 per cent. cut in its production prices before the present German demarche occurred. We believe that there are further savings to be made, and we shall continue to examine them in co-operation with our partners.
The best way forward must be to build on our investment in the EFA, not to throw it away. If Germany perceives a reduced threat, it can by all means opt to fit less capable equipment in the aircraft, but a new airframe and new engines at this stage is merely a recipe for delay and extra expense. The delay involved would not only add to the cost but would cause massive disruption to the aerospace industry in the four EFA nations. Indeed, it is questionable whether, when the time came, the capability would still exist to build the new aircraft that Germany has proposed. Technological development is an ongoing capacity. We cannot put it down and expect to start again with it intact several years later. My hon. Friends who represent Lancashire constituencies are well aware of that. Nor can we keep aircraft factories idle for up to five years and then expect to find a skilled labour force that is ready and waiting to start work again. I am sure that my hon. Friends the Members for Ribble Valley, for Blackpool, North and for Wyre all know that if we take the present German route there would almost certainly be serious disruption and reduced employment prospects and technical skills in factories in their constituencies.

Dr. Reid: I know that the Minister is pushed for time and I do not want to delay him for long. All of the discussion tonight has focused on the British and German angles on the EFA. Will he take the opportunity to tell us whether he is aware of the latest developments in the thinking of the Italians, especially in view of their budget deficit and the cuts that they have made in the past few days?

Mr. Aitken: I shall be glad to deal with those matters in a moment.
The House will want to know what we propose to do in the light of the meeting of my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State with Herr Rühe earlier this week. We are talking, of course, about a collaborative programme that involves four partners. Perhaps there are only three partners now, but we are not sure of even that yet. First, we need to discuss Germany's stated position with our partners. We need also to discuss any detailed proposals that Germany may make about the smaller aircraft that Herr Rühe has been suggesting. We think that the first priority is for my right hon. and learned Friend to meet his Italian and Spanish colleagues at the earliest opportunity to discuss the implications of the EFA programme in the light of the German decision. The signs that have come from the Italian and Spanish Governments have been distinctly encouraging. Robust views have been expressed in support of the aircraft. However, all Governments are committed to attempting to reduce costs. All the three remaining partners are determined to meet at the earliest opportunity, and I think that an announcement


about such a meeting will he made shortly. As partners, we wish coolly and calmly to find the right way ahead for the project.
We shall take a measured approach. The signs are that our partners wish also to take that approach. They do not wish to waste, as the German Government appear to be willing to do, the £5 billion that has already been spent on development. We all feel that it would he wrong to rush into decisions about the EFA before we are sure that what is proposed represents the most cost-effective way forward, that it represents value for money and that it is affordable for all the Governments concerned. We shall not know this until we have examined and debated all the options with our EFA partners.
It was always the plan and the timetable that these matters would be discussed when the development phase reached its end, or moved towards it, early next year. We are now having discussions a little earlier than expected. Germany has said that it will continue to meet its obligations in the development of the EFA, and final discussions about production are still some way off. It remains the Government's hope that we shall be able to continue with the programme with or without Germany. As one of my hon. Friends said, we are optimistic that, even if we were to go ahead with a three-nation programme only, the costs would be no more than they were planned to be had Germany not withdrawn from the project.
As the debate has shown, the EFA project has profound industrial, political, strategic and economic implications, as well as fundamental military ones, which I have been outlining and concentrating upon tonight. Decisions on its future will therefore rightly be subjected to intense scrutiny and debate within the Government, in the House, in the country generally and by all our EFA partners. We should welcome that debate, which can be a well-informed one only if the facts are coolly and quietly analysed. The aircraft has not yet flown, but some of those who are talking and writing about it seem to have become airborne far too excitably and far too soon. I believe that tonight's debate has been a welcome contrast to some of the ill-informed debate that has taken place outside the House. As I have said, the debate has shown real expertise and knowledge among Members. We are grateful to the hon. Member for Motherwell, North for initiating it and for his lucid presentation. I hope that I have answered all my hon. Friends' questions. I trust that I have indicated that we think that a calm, thoughtful and positive way forward can be found in conjunction with our remaining EFA partners.

Orders of the Day — Population Policy

Mr. Anthony Steen: It is a great pleasure to see you in the Chair tonight, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am glad of the opportunity to raise a matter which should concern not only this House, but all the Parliaments of the European Community. It is slightly strange that this matter should be discussed immediately after a debate about the European fighter aircraft. It is as though nobody has noticed that the cold war with Russia has ended and that the biggest threat to world survival is not bombs or fighter aircraft, but people. The problem is that there are too many people. It is not an external problem—it is within man himself. It is the very way man has been designed that puts the globe at risk and the future of human life in jeopardy.
I will explain the scale of the problem. First, three babies are born every second. While I have been speaking for the past two or three minutes, many hundreds of babies have been born. Some 300,000 babies are born every day, and there are 90 million new mouths to feed every year. In a little more than 50 years, it is estimated that the world population will have doubled from the present 5·.4 billion to 10 billion in the year 2050.
Sir Crispin Tickell put it very well when he said:
the logic is relentless. This animal—you and 1—cannot continue to multiply, consume more natural resources, and do more environmental damage indefinitely. Our long suffering earth simply cannot take it.
We have a global problem, which can be tackled only by international action. It is only a total world effort that can stop the world community committing hara kiri.
Just as we are mutually assured of destruction if we do not control weapons, so we are mutually assured of destruction if we do not take action on the population problem. When Nietzsche said that the world is a great death cell he must have foreseen man's potential for massive self-destruction—not creating anything outside that will destroy him, but destroying himself inside. Suicide is no longer about bombs or fighter aircraft, but about the manufacture of too many babies for the world's natural resources to sustain.
The world can sustain 5 billion people, which is the present population, but the train is moving inevitably forward and we cannot stop the world population doubling to 10 million by the year 2050. The question is whether we can stop the world population tripling. If we cannot, the world cannot sustain itself with its current natural resources because they will have been exhausted.
This is a world problem which requires a supranational response. The European Community is one of the world's greatest trading and economic blocks. It must take the lead, force the pace, and drive forward the programme to curtail the onward movement of the train and the seemingly unstoppable growth in the world's population. The EC should not just be imposing the optimum length of the cucumber, considering whether federalism is desirable, or determining fish quotas.
The debate on fish quotas is nevertheless illuminating. We are running out of fish. Too many people want fish and there has been overfishing. Already, the EC is having to curtail the amount of fish caught because the demand for fish by the ever-increasing population cannot be sustained. Fish quotas are an early warning of the problem. We need to realise that our fishing problems are the result of an


ever-growing and demanding population. During our presidency of the EC, we should be moving towards a new priority on the world agenda in terms of how to deal with the world population.
I am delighted to see one of my favourite Ministers on the Front Bench tonight. He has already replied to one debate. In case my hon. Friend has any doubt about the scale of the problem, I will give him some figures which may help him to see just what I am getting at and why this is probably one of the most important debates that we have had in the House for some time.
The world population stands at 5.5 billion. The population of the more developed countries, including the EC, stands at 1.25 billion, leaving about 4 billion from the under-developed or less developed countries. At the present rate of population growth, it will take 148 years for the population of the more developed countries to double. In the developed world, the 1.25 billion will double to 2.5 billion in 148 years. But the population of the less developed countries—about 4 billion—will double in 34 years. By 2025 the population of the under-developed countries will have doubled.
Let us look at where the problem is. North Africa has a population of 147 million. That will double in 27 years. West Africa has a population of 182 million. That will double in 23 years. Nigeria has a population of 90 million. That will double in 23 years. East Africa has a population of 206 million. That will double to 412 million in 22 years. By 2020 the population of eastern Africa will go from 206 million to 412 million. Ethiopia has a population of 54 million. That will double in 25 years. Kenya has a population of 26 million. That will double in 19 years. Zambia has a population of 8 million. That will double in 18 years. Tanzania has a population of 27 million. That will double in 20 years.
The problem occurs not just in north Africa, west Africa or east Africa, but also middle Africa, where a population of 72 million will double in 23 years. In south Africa, 47 million will double in 26 years. So Africa has a problem, but it is not the only country with that problem.
Western Asia has a population of 139 million; in 24 years that will have doubled. Iraq has a population of 18 million; in 19 years that will have doubled. Turkey's present population of 59 million will double in 32 years: southern Asia's population of 1,231 million will double in 31 years. If the present birth rate continues, India's population of 882 million will double in 34 years, and Pakistan's population of 121 million will double in 23 years, though it will take 270 years for Japan's population of 124 million to double.
We see a dramatic and appalling picture in Africa and western Asia, but it is not confined to those countries. There are 453 million people in Latin America; if the present birth rate continues, that population will double in 34 years. North America's population of 283 million, though, will take 89 years to double. In other words, Latin America's population will double three times as fast as north America's.
From those figures, it seems that populations are doubling every 20 to 25 years in Africa, Asia and Latin America. Now let us consider the figures for Europe. The European Community—if we include Scandinavia—contains 511 million people. If the present birth rate

continues, it will take 338 years for that population to double. It will take 753 years for Denmark's population to doube, and 257 for the United Kingdom's to do the same. Germany already has a minus population trend and Austria's population will take 495 years to double.

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: Are not all those figures based on the assumption that no major advances will be made in birth control technology? The hon. Gentleman has referred to population's doubling in 20, 30, 50 or 300 years. Surely it is inconceivable that major advances will not be made in that time. Although the hon. Gentleman's statistics may appear very dramatic today, I do not think that they will materialise.

Mr. Steen: That is, of course, an important point. We are always hearing scare stories about terrible things which are going to happen. The technology, however, is not the problem. The technology is there; the problem is access to it. It is not available to some of the world's poorest countries. Populations in western Europe, America and Russia are now under control, but unless we can persuade the developing countries to practise controls which will reduce the current alarming birth rates, the population increases that I have described will come about just 20 or 23 years from now.
There is now way in which we can stop the world population from doubling: it is inevitable. By the year 2050, the world population will be 10 billion. The machinery has already moved into position. What we must do, now that Britain is president of the Community, is to find a way in which to stop it from tripling.
Why, then, are we experiencing this appalling problem of population growth? The reason is the reduction in infant mortality rates, about which we should of course be delighted. People also live longer because of the progress of modern medical technology. But there has been no corresponding reduction in the number of children born. That is why populations have continued to rise so dramatically all over the world.
People's habits are lagging behind technology. The fact that millions of the poorest people have not had access to the technology has resulted in the problem. I draw the attention of the House to an important article on that subject in The Economist on 30 May, which said that 300 million of the poorest couples in the world want to restrict the size of their families but cannot get access to family planning services.
It is not a matter of shoving family planning down people's throats, if that is the right metaphor. The problem is that people cannot get access to the facilities which would allow them to control their own destiny. That is the root of the problem now.
Power stations in the third world are pumping out noxious gases which require flue gas desulphurisation and other expensive systems to prevent the pollution of the atmosphere. They may have to be rebuilt at enormous cost. There is a thrust to cut down carbon dioxide e missions, which is difficult, expensive and unpopular. In contrast, family planning is cheap and effective, and people are crying out for it. Furthermore, it has a lasting impact on the environment. The technology is readily available. The problem is that the world's poor cannot get hold of it.
The European parliamentary conference, promoted by the British all-party parliamentary group on population


and development, of which I am proud to be a member, was held in London on 31 January. At that meeting, Sir Crispin Tickell considered the impact on the environment and said that the civilisations of Crete, Petra, central America, the Mexican plateau and Easter island had all collapsed because of an imbalance between population and the environment. He explained that population increase was a major contributor to environmental change and that it put severe stress on the life-supporting capacity of the planet.
We should consider the use of land, water, energy and air. In Ethiopia the fertile upland areas where 88 per cent. of the population live have been losing between 1.5 and 3.5 billion tonnes of fertile topsoil per year. The population was 20 million in 1950; it is 50 million today. During the famines of 1984–85, when an estimated half a million people died of hunger, that number was replaced by new births in little more than six months. When there was such interest in Ethiopia with the national media and enormous sums raised, when we had airlifts and fund raising by pop stars, all the people who died were replaced by new births within six months.
Access to uncontaminated water has barely kept pace with population growth. According to the World Health Organisation, 1·6 billion additional people were given access to water of a reasonable quality. In rural areas more than 855 million people have no access to safe water Most of the countries with limited renewable water resources are in the middle east, north Africa, and sub-Saharan Africa—the regions whose populations are growing fastest.
In developing countries, resource consumption per capita is lower, but rapidly growing populations and the pressure to develop their economies are leading to substantial and increasing damage to the local environment. That is caused by direct pollution through energy use and other industrial activities, clearing forests and unsympathetic agricultural practices.
One fifth of humanity—more than 1 billion urban dwellers—breathe unhealthy air. In the 1980s, Bangkok, Beijing, Calcutta, New Delhi, and Teheran exceeded the World Health Organisation's guideline of 200 days per year of maximum urban air pollution levels. We have seen examples of such damage in Madagascar, with deforestation and all the other environmental issues.
Someone must take the lead. Britain's presidency of the European Community provides us with a great opportunity to change the order of priorities. There are many short-term and medium-term competing demands, but the United Kingdom could rejig the priorities—realising that the population issue is more important than any of the short-term environmental problems that it may be politically expedient to defeat, but that that will not deal with the long-term issues.
A policy paper published by the Commission's Directorate General VIII, with much input from our own Overseas Development Agency, was discussed by development Ministry officials in Brussels on 4 June. A redraft is being circulated in the corridors of the Commission, but I am not sure what will happen next. It might go before the Council of Minister in November, and be debated in the European Parliament. The most important issue facing the world just might be debated in the European Parliament in November.
The EC development budget, known as 'B/75050 Budget Line"—that is how they talk over there—provides for 2 million ecu for demographic programmes. I believe

that that is code for family planning, and two million ecu is about £1·25 million. When the EC is spending so little money on the problem, it is hardly surprising that it does not give the problem a high priority.
Can my hon. Friend the Minister reveal the timetable for discussion on the issues paper? When will the European Parliament debate the subject? What funding is currently devoted to population-related activities within the EC development budget? Which director-general is responsible for that funding, and for policy? Has the possibility of establishing a health and population unit, on the lines of our own Overseas Development Agency, been examined? How many health and population experts are there working in the Commission, and for which director-generals do they work? We ought to know what is going on in the EC, and what hope there is of the Community taking a lead, with us pushing from behind.
EC representatives should have attended the Rio summit, but Ripa di Meana did not feel like going, for understandable reasons. I believe that the Pope and other religious leaders should also have been there, because the population problem has religious overtones. Not only was the Pope not at Rio, but population was barely on the agenda. The debates were on the more fashionable environmental issues like global warming, biodiversity, chlorofluorocarbons, and carbon dioxide emissions from car exhausts, but ignored the major, all-embracing world population problem which should have been on the front page and at the top of the queue. It has been waiting long enough for international recognition and for the international community to take action. The subject has been shouting to be taken seriously, but it was hardly noticed in Rio.
The £500,000 that it cost the British delegation to travel to Rio, with Ministers and their private secretaries flying first class and the rest of the officials flying club class, might have been better spent on a grant to increase the work of organisations such as the International Planned Parenthood Federation and other non-governmental organisations which are trying to reduce the population problem that threatens the stability of countries all over the world.
The problem is not just about the priorities at Rio or in the EC. Opposition Members will share my concern about the equally important problem of how we can educate and train women to develop their interest and concern about the population problem. There cannot he many other issues where investment could do more for the development of the environment.
Studies by the World bank have shown that when women have no secondary education, they have an average of seven children. If even 40 per cent. of the women have been to secondary schools, family size drops to three children. Better educated women also have healthier babies. If they are farmers, they are better at managing the environment on which their livelihoods depend. They are more likely to find employment, financial independence and thus the sexual independence that they need to decide how many babies to bear.
Educating women may be less intellectually challenging than keeping the planet cool, but few investments would do more for development and the environment. The EC could play a part by providing greater funds to educate and train women. That is the key to starting the process of reducing the world's population. Before the world's powers look around for enemies to fight with increasingly


sophisticated weapons, they should first identify the enemy. The enemy is not outside. The enemy is actually staring us in the face. The enemy is ourselves. The enemy is not a soldier with a gun, but the life force within the human race.
The task, therefore, is gargantuan. My hon. Friend the Minister has no time to sleep tonight. He should go back to his office immediately after the debate, call out his civil servants, send a fax to all his ministerial opposite numbers in the EC, jump on the first plane to Brussels in the morning and say that population must move up the list of priorities on the agenda. He should also adopt a target of 4 per cent. of this country's overseas development finance for population activities.
We give about 1·5 per cent. of our overseas aid—a substantial sum for which I give credit to my hon. Friend the Minister—to family planning and population activities, but that is wholly inadequate. I urge my hon. Friend the Minister to urge the Commission that population priorities should be translated into action as a matter of urgency. Stronger initiatives should be taken in the Community to assist in making family planning universally available before the end of the decade for more than 100 million couples who want it, but have no access to it. Or do my hon. Friend and the world want to wait until it is standing room only and too late to do anything?

Mrs. Ann Clwyd: About 18 months ago, the hon. Member for South Hams (Mr. Steen), the hon. Member for Taunton (Mr. Nicholson) and I were privileged to go on a trip, which was organised by the International Planned Parenthood Federation, to Malaysia and Thailand to study population techniques in those countries.
I could not possibly disagree with many of the interesting comments made by the hon. Member for South Hams. I agree wholeheartedly with his point about the importance of investing in women. We cannot say often enough that it is the best investment that Governments can make. That is why I have frequently questioned our Overseas Development Administration on its policies on population assistance.
It is regrettable that, until very recently, we spent only about 1 per cent. of the budget on population assistance. From 1979 to 1990, we cut by about 63 per cent. our contribution to the United Nations Fund for Population Activities. It is regrettable that that should have happened, particularly as the Minister for Overseas Development made many speeches in Rio and elsewhere about the importance of population assistance. Of course, she omitted to mention that the Government have been lax in pursuing that important policy.
In the past, when I have questioned the Minister for Overseas Development about what percentage of the ODA budget was focused on women, the answer has been that, as 50 per cent. of the world's population are women, it was assumed that 50 per cent. of the budget was spent on women. By no stretch of the imagination could that be considered fine tuning. I hope that the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs will tell us that the ODA can be more accurate in its answers on that matter. There is no point in the Government's paying lip

service to the importance of investing in women if they cannot guarantee that some of their main policies and expenditure are directed at investment in women.
As the hon. Member for South Hams said, rapid population growth imposes an enormous burden on mothers, communities and the earth's resources. Mothers who have many children are more likely to suffer ill health or to die in childbirth than those who can space their children. Their children, too, are more likely to be ill. As population growth outpaces economic growth, more people sink into poverty and are forced to scratch a living from the diminishing natural resources around them.
There is no easy way to stabilise population growth. Widespread access to family planning, education of women and of men, and measures to raise family income and reduce health risks must all go together. One of the clearest lessons of the past two decades is that investment in women—that is, raising their status, providing access to education, to health care and to family planning—not only improves the quality of life but is the best and quickest way to reduce population growth rates.
A recent report published by the World bank makes the same point. Educating women is the biggest single solution to poverty and environmental destruction. Women hold the key to prosperity because they control their fertility and the fertility of the soil. A secondary education reduces family size from seven to three children. Nothing could be clearer than that. I still find it incredible that the rich countries of the world do not respond to the challenges that such reports place before us.
In many developing countries—I have had the opportunity to visit several of them to see United Nations programmes in action—the lack of knowledge of contraception or access to family planning denies women the chance to space their children. A study in Nepal showed that almost 40 per cent. of women with children did not want another child. But 90 per cent. of married women in that country did not know where to obtain contraception advice or supplies. Every year the complications of unplanned pregnancies and abortions kill 200,000 mothers in that country.
I went to Ethiopia about two years ago and saw the United Nations programme on population in action. I saw the long queues of women outside the rural clinics. Many of them would be turned away that day because the staff simply could not cope with the demand. I realised that Britain had cut our contribution to that important United Nations fund. I hope that we shall revoke that particularly bad decision and increase our contributions to those United Nations funds which everyone knows make a worthwhile contribution throughout the world.

Mr. Steen: Perhaps the hon. Lady is coming to what Britain could do as president of the European Community. If she is, I shall not say any more. If she is not, I hope that she will.

Mrs. Clwyd: The hon. Gentleman is impatient. He gave us a tour around the world. I suspect that if he had had the opportunity to display his visual aids and maps more prominently, many hon. Members might have benefited. So he must forgive me if I take not quite such an extensive tour as he did but nevertheless mention parts of the world where I have seen important programmes in action.
Women need to be confident that, if they limit the number of children, the children will survive into


adulthood. With up to one in three children dying before their fifth birthday in some of the poorest countries, it is not surprising that some parents feel that as an insurance policy they need to have several children. Therefore, investment in primary health care is essential. It is estimated that simple measures could save about 11,000 children who die from diarrhoea every day in the developing world and 8.000 who die from six major preventable diseases every day. Obviously, that must be tied up with the level of overseas aid that developing countries are prepared to devote to reducing such problems.
In the west and some middle-income developing countries, growing economic security has, for example, brought slower population growth. In most developing countries, the downward spiral of poverty, large families, ill health, lack of resources and increasing poverty still predominates.
In the long term the key to stabilising the world population is to support broad-based development and to promote economic security throughout the third world. That will require increased aid, debt relief, trade reforms and an international commitment to invest in the poor. That is the only way in which to give women, their children and the planet a fair chance.
Those of us who were able to attend the Rio conference deeply regretted that the rich countries were not prepared to address themselves to the agenda of the poorer countries. That agenda calls for increased aid flows, reductions in debt, increased trade possibilities and the transfer of technology. Whatever rhetoric the richer countries care to use to describe their so-called achievements in Rio, they cannot get away from the fact that they were not prepared to offer to meet any of those requests. Rio gave us the opportunity to redress the inequalities in the world and it was deplorable that the richer countries were not prepared to promote third-world issues.
If the Government had maintained their contributions to the United Nations Fund for Population Activities at the 1979 level up to 1990, the UNFPA would have received an additional £42·3 million. That substantial sum of money has been denied to the developing world because of the priorities that our Government have chosen to adopt. In 1979, UNFPA received £9·2 million at 1991–92 prices; in 1991–92 the sum stood at £7·5 million and in 1992–93 the planned figure is £9 million. I hope that the Minister can give us better news on that UN fund.
Last month's report from the UNFPA, "State of World Population 1992", the first for 10 years, shows how serious the situation has become. In the 1980s, food production fell behind population growth in 69 out of 102 developing countries. As the hon. Member for South Hams said, in the next decade world population will accelerate by the fastest rate in history. Almost all the population growth will take place in Africa, Asia and south America—more than half of that in Africa and south Asia, which are already suffering the greatest difficulty in meeting food, health and hygiene needs. As the hon. Gentleman said, further delay could be fatal.
Some third-world countries have already shown that family planning can succeed. The key to success is, once again, secondary education for women, plus access to land, jobs and family planning methods. One need only consider what has happened in certain states in India to see what a difference in attitude can achieve. Kerala and states

in the north of India have been extremely successful in their control of population. The "State of World Population 1992" report is worth reading because it makes that achievement clear.
The report states:
Kerala's female literacy rate of 66 per cent. is almost double that of its nearest rival. In the five northern states, only 11–21 per cent. of women can read.
Kerala has the lowest infant mortality rate in India…In the northern states infant mortality is between four and five times higher.
Kerala's fertility rate has fallen to the astonishingly low level of 2·3 children per woman—lower than Thailand or China, the former USSR or Ireland. Contraceptive prevalence is three times the national rate.
The report suggests that two factors explain Kerala's success in human development:
One is the priority given by the state government to spending on education and health, continuing a tradition that reaches far back into colonial times…Kerala is the only state in India…where the rural death rate is lower than the urban. A far-reaching land reform from the 1960s, has benefited three million tenants and landless.
The second factor, whose roots reach even further into history, is the status of women.
I recently heard a group of women from Kerala take part in an Institute of Development Studies seminar at the university of Sussex. It was fascinating to listen to some of them argue for improving the status of women in many other parts of the world.
In Kerala, as in the north and many other parts of India and Africa, women inherit land. In Kerala, the husband's family pays the bride price to the wife's family on marriage and women—unlike some other parts of India—are considered an asset. In the north they are considered a burden. In reality, they are a wasted asset.
My hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) and I saw and heard of some of the attitudes towards women in India, especially in northern India, recently and saw the different approaches to their importance in that country. The waste of that asset has immense human costs and has led to economic stagnation and rapid population growth in the north of India.
Thailand has reduced its fertility rate, from an average of almost seven children per woman to just over two, and I must pay tribute to what we saw in that country during our visit. Kenya, which used to have the world's fastest rising population, has apparently turned the corner. It is interesting that for every priest in Africa preaching against modern contraception, there are five Catholic nurses urging women to go to family planning clinics. That is also a welcome development.
Whatever the Minister says about population policy, I am sure that he will use many encouraging words. However, in the context of an expanding aid budget— although I suspect that it is likely to continue to shrink as regards some of the poorer developing countries as resources are channelled towards central and eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union—the problem is that the Government analysis treats effects—population growth—not causes. The Government do not often talk about poverty. If Government policy is based on diverting funds away from poverty alleviation, it will be self-defeating. Family planning must be seen as part of a wider health care provision.
The hon. Member for South Hams mentioned the United Kingdom presidency and the Development Council of the EC. He scoffed at some of the budget lines in the European Community, but, as a former Member of


the European Parliament, I found the budget lines of considerable advantage because, in contrast with what happens in the Westminster system, Members of the European Parliament can amend the budget line by line. If some of his colleagues in the European Parliament wished to put in additional lines on population assistance in the Community budget, they would be able to promote such a policy. Unfortunately, we do not have such an opportunity in Westminster. An Opposition Member has considerably more powers in the European Parliament to promote policies and obtain funds for subjects that he considers important.
As we all know, there is a logjam in the Community, and it is important that, as the United Kingdom holds the presidency, the Commissioners, and particularly some of the Development Commissioners, are encouraged to move rather faster on certain policies than they have done. I hope that, during the United Kingdom presidency, and while we have the chair of the EC Development Council, the Government will be extending their policies on the debts of developing countries to take into account debts to multilateral institutions and to commercial banks. After all, in 1990, for the first time, Britain received more in debt repayment from the third world than it gave in aid and new loans.
I hope that the Government take the lead in the Community in dealing with the enormity of the famine in Africa. I am sure that the hon. Member for South Hams would not like to see population decline as a result of famine. Africa needs something on the scale of a Marshall plan. What is offered is a desperate, last-minute reliance on emergency aid with no timetable for delivery. It is to the shame of the House that we have not had an opportunity to debate the crisis in Africa before the recess, because, before we meet again, it will have claimed hundreds of thousands of lives, unless the EC and the Government move swiftly to do something about getting food aid faster to those African countries suffering from drought and famine. I hope that the Minister will be able to give us some assurances on that.
Will the Minister assure us—again as the United Kingdom holds the presidency—that we shall address the trade issue, and stop treating the floundering GATT negotiations as a panacea for the ills of the developing world? GATT is a United States-EC dialogue and any advantage to the third world will be only a spin-off from that. I hope that the Government will back up their rehetoric on GATT with action and announce a strategy for improving the trading position of developing nations.
I think that I have made it clear, as the hon. Member for South Hams did, that population assistance cannot be treated in isolation. It must be treated in the context of all the subjects that I have mentioned. The figures tell a story of considerable cuts and disregard for the needs of women in the third world.
Despite what the Government said about population, at the Rio conference they gave no strong commitment to increase population assistance within the present meagre aid budget. I hope that the Minister will be able to address that on behalf of a Government who have done little about population over the past 13 years.

Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for South Hams (Mr. Steen) and the hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd) on their constructive and well-informed speeches. They have obviously travelled widely and have had a great chance to study the problem in detail. I shall be brief in addressing one or two important aspects.
The matter was last debated in the House on 25 June during the debate on the Rio conference. It was heartening to hear many hon. Members speak about the vital and immediate problem of the huge growth in world population. I put the topic into context when I spoke in that debate and I gave the figures—an increase from half a billion people at the time of Christ to today's world population of 5 billion, a number which will roughly double in the next 30 to 40 years.
After Rio, an article in The Economist stated that the growth in world population was a severe hindrance to economic and environmental improvement.
I hope that the amnesia of Rio can be more than rectified at the EC Development Council meeting on 18 November. As a result of the debate, I hope that the Minister will pass on to my right hon. Friends the Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister our pleas to move this vital issue up the agenda during our presidency of the EC so that it is discussed not only in the Development Council but at the summit in Edinburgh in December. If the problem is placed nearer the top of the agenda, we might start to get some action.
I listened carefully to the debate and noted the comment by my hon. Friend the Member for South Hams that the resources devoted to the UN FPA are insufficient. It is sad that such cost-effective aid was not increased. I join in urging the Minister to see whether some of the new resources promised by the Prime Minister at Rio can be used to help solve the world's population problem.
One cannot totally separate the problem of population increase from economic growth and the exploitation of environmental resources; the three are inextricably linked. It is a sad fact that in poorer countries as economic activity falls, poverty and the population increase. As the hon. Member for Cynon Valley said, the extra children born often do not live beyond the age of 30.
As I said in my speech on 25 June, there is a clear case for increasing resources to educate women. That will enable us somehow to break out of the vicious cycle in which women emerge from the family unit when very young and immediately start to bear children. If we could improve education in some of the poor countries so that people delayed having children, and brought them up and fed them better, and had improved health resources, housing and schooling, we could start to break the cycle.
That process is not without success. The link between population and economic growth has been proved in the four "dragon countries"—Taiwan, Singapore, Hong Kong and South Korea—which have dramatically stabilised their populations as a result of improved economic activity. One of our major contributions is to try to reduce third-world debt. The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development estimated that, in 1989, the level of third-world debt had reached record proportions.
I welcome the initiatives of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to ensure that the Trinidad terms are not only adhered to, but advanced. That is a significant contribution to reducing world poverty, particularly in the third world, and is a subject of which we do not hear enough.
It is vital to increase trade in third world countries. We have heard much this evening about the growth in the world population. At the height of the growth of the western world during the industrial revolution, the population was growing at about 1–5 per cent. per annum. My hon. Friend the Minister said earlier that that means that the population would double in 30 years. At its height, when there was a great economic push for people to emigrate to north America, the world population was increasing at about 2 per cent. per annum. It is a sad fact that, of the 42 countries where population is increasing at more than 3 per cent. per annum, 24 are in the African continent. It is a great pity that we do not hear enough about a strategic plan for helping the African continent.
The EC Development Council has produced a paper called "Horizon 2000"—to which my hon. Friend the Member for South Hams alluded. He rightly asked which directorate of the commission was responsible for that paper and which was responsible for financing it. I suspect that it is a little like the "Agenda 21" document at Rio —it lacks teeth. The issue must be moved up the political agenda. It is a sad reflection of the importance of this subject that, despite the lateness of the hour, there are not more hon. Members present to debate it.
I do not know whether there will be sufficient action at the European development summit. I hope that one day, within my lifetime—certainly in this Parliament—the issue will take on greater urgency. I urge my hon. Friend the Minister to consider whether we can meet the United Nation's target of doubling our aid from 1 to 2 per cent. of the United Nations population fund by 1995, as that would be an extremely cost-effective way of alleviating some of the worst poverty in the world.
One of the major problems relating to third world poverty, debt and population explosion is the sort of Government with whom we have to deal. In aiding countries in one way or another, we are trying to help them to help themselves. I think that Christopher Patten was the first person I heard talk about the problem when he was Minister for Overseas Development. It is no good flooding countries with emergency aid. The aid must be properly structured and planned.
As my hon. Friend the Member for South Hams said, there was a great deal of razzmatazz in 1985 when 500,000 people died in Ethiopia and Bob Geldof proposed Live Aid to raise about £20 million. Sadly, within a year, that population had been replaced. Such aid is typical of what I call "fire brigade aid" going to a despotic, tyrannical Government. We need to continue what Christopher Patten began and link our aid to democratic government.
Progress is being made in some parts of the world, as we heard in our earlier debate on south America. Some countries there have a growing population problem and are progressing to good democratic government. We heard in an earlier debate how Venezuela and Colombia in particular have now had two terms of democratic government.
I see that the lateness of the hour is getting to us all. It is time for me to finish and let the Minister wind up. I hope that he will bear my comments in mind. I also hope that

he will bring the debate to the attention of my right hon. Friends the Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister and move it up the political agenda so that we get some action.

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: I had not intended to speak in the debate, so I rise without notes, but I should like to say a few words in response to some of the issues that have been raised.
I wish to place on record the appreciation of many of my hon. Friends for the important work done by the all-party group on population and development and, in particular, to express our appreciation to miss Dilys Cossey for the way in which she advises Members of Parliament. I know that many of my hon. Friends are deeply indebted to her for her work.
I mention the personal position of women in third world countries who are faced with the problem of fertility and their considerations when deciding—if it can be said that they have a choice—the size of their families. Millions of women have no choice.
When my hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd) and I were in India, we were fortunate to be able to interview a young woman outside the Rihand power station in central India. We asked her about problems of contraception and how to decide the size of her family. It was a very personal conversation and, within a few minutes, she was reduced to tears, but we learned the truth. She lived on very little money in an area with very little primary health care cover.
She faced a dilemma. She had a very low income but recognised that, if she were to live to 50, which might be deemed an old age in India, she would need some form of financial security in her old age, which she believed meant having children. Therefore, there were economic considerations to be taken into account when discussing children. However, she could not afford to raise children as her husband was unemployed so, in effect, she had no choice. It was only when we provoked the discussion with her that she broke down and explained her dilemma in detail.
If we are to resolve these matters in the longer term we shall not do so simply by education, although that is extremely important. We must secure economic development so that people are enabled to take real decisions on whether it is necessary to expand their families. That brings us back to the allocation of resources. I think that the European Community has a special role to play in developing programmes for sustainable development so that women know that they can look forward to longer-term economic security.
We were able to visit a clinic in India. It was not particularly hygienic. As we walked into it, we saw several women lying on the floor who had just had sterilisation operations. When we went into the so-called theatre at the back of the clinic, we saw that the conditions were pretty poor. The authorities in the area were clearly quite proud of the provision that was being made, but I left with a great sense of unease about whether population controls could be dealt with in that way.
It cannot be beyond the wit of man in coming decades to find ways further to improve the advanced technology that now exists. Some of us object to the proposition that we can leave these matters to market forces and that private companies will develop the technology. A huge


international effort is required. States, Governments and research institutions must be involved if we are to make further major advances so that women are not required to go through the indignity of the operations that my hon. Friend and I saw being carried out in India. Even today, crude technology is applied to women who face the difficulties that have been described. Equally, a huge effort must be made to ensure that that does not continue.
We must avoid reliance on private sector industry initatives operating in commercial market conditions. Governments are invariably the purchasers and states must be involved. They must promote research so that people throughout the third world can benefit.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Mark Lennox-Boyd): With the leave of the House, perhaps I might speak for a second time in this debate on the Consolidated Fund.
First, I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for South Hams (Mr. Steen) on drawing an important subject to the attention of the House. I extend my congratulations to the all-party group on population and development for the constructive role that it plays in the continuing debate. We shall certainly continue to listen to what it has to say on this important subject. It is a critically important topic, which is central to the goal of overcoming poverty and achieving sustainable progress within developing countries. I am glad to say that it is of particular and growing interest to many hon. Members.
I believe that the Government can claim some credit for the role that we have been playing internationally in ensuring that population is given the attention that it deserves. Over the past year or so, our voice was significant in helping to ensure that population was placed firmly on the agenda of the Earth summit in Rio. It was an initial disappointment when it seemed as though the summit would not address the issue, but latterly it did. The subject was recognised by the participants for its importance.
During the summit, my right hon. and noble Friend the Minister for Overseas Development made a notable speech —it has drawn praise from many quarters—pressing the case for population to be tackled seriously by the international community. We have also been pleased by the support that we have been getting from many quarters for the principles and goals that we have adopted under the Overseas Development Administration population initiatives, "Children by Choice not Chance", which was announced last year, accompanied by an admirable pamphlet which I know that my hon. Friend will have seen.
The subject of the debate relates particularly to the Government's population policy with regard to the European Community and to the period of the United Kingdom's presidency. This debate provides a welcome opportunity to explain our intentions during the presidency. We believe that the European Community's aid programme should pay more attention to supporting programmes which extend women's and men's right to choose whether, and when, to have children. Its present involvement in this area is not substantial. Fortunately, there are a good number of people in Brussels who share our view that that needs to change.
We are not actively involved with the European Commission in an initiative, to which my hon. Friend referred, which we hope will significantly enhance the support that the Community provides to population programmes in developing countries, especially in the strengthening of family planning services. We are very pleased that the Commission—the DG8—has already acted by organising a recent meeting of population experts from EC member countries. I could say more about that, but I want to make progress. I will write to my hon. Friend and deal with any points that I cannot answer in detail tonight. Unfortunately, I have only 14 minutes left.
That meeting was especially useful in helping to move towards a more coherent European position on the essential components of family planning programmes and how donor countries should be helping.
The next important step, in which the United Kingdom presidency will again be collaborating closely with the European Commission, will be to ensure that population features as a key item of attention at the next Development Council in November. I am pleased to confirm that my right hon. and noble Friend the Minister for Overseas Development will be in chair at that important meeting. I shall be representing the United Kingdom.
The Government's aim is that the Development Council will agree a new, stronger resolution on population which will build on the existing rather imprecise declarations of principle in favour of population support contained in the Lomé convention. We hope that that will provide the Commission with a clear political push for greater involvement in support of population programmes and also specific operational guidelines for the Community's aid programme in that area. It is our hope that such an outcome will also encourage member states to pay greater attention to population programmes within their own national aid programmes, as we have already been doing in the United Kingdom under our own population initiative.
I wish to rebut some of the points made by the hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd). She failed— characteristically, I regret to say—to give any credit to the Government on the Toronto and Trinidad terms, which have been a major initiative over the years and a major engine to help reduce the burden of debt in the third world. I fear that she was not sufficiently generous to the Government in relation to their enormous promotion of the Uruguay round on the GATT negotiations, which is absolutely essential to the Government's policy on aid. We never stop emphasising that it is an essential feature of our policy to help the third world to trade with the rich world and to raise its standard of living in that way.
I wish to correct two errors in the hon. Lady's speech. She repeated the canard that, in 1990, third-world countries paid more back to the rich west than they received in aid and loans. That is not true—it is merely an accounting factor, because when debt has been written off it is considered as a debt repayment. That is the reason for that statistical misinterpretation. If the hon. Lady does not accept what I say, I will ask my right hon. Friend to write to her in graphic detail so that the point is put clearly and she can be relieved of any misapprehension.
The hon. Lady was under another misapprehension in suggesting that in some way our aid programme for the third world will be reduced because of commitments to the former Soviet Union. She knows that that is a different budget. It is perfectly true that raising Government


expenditure generally in one area affects the potential for Government expenditure in another. If that is what the hon. Lady is saying, fine, but that is not an argument of any substance. We are helping the former Soviet Union from a different aid resource, as she well knows. She should not use that argument to suggest that in some way aid to the third world is threatened.
The amount that we devote to population within the aid programme has risen from 1·1 per cent. to 1·5 per cent. of our aid budget during the last two years, and it is likely to continue to rise during the next two years in the same sort of way.
My hon. Friend the member for South Hams brought to the House some alarming statistics on world population and how the less developed countries are growing in such a frighteningly fast way. He gave graphic examples from Africa and Asia.
My way of understanding that terrific explosion is to say to myself that anyone who is a shade older than 40, or about 40—we are all a shade older than 40—will have seen the world population double in his or her lifetime. In the next 30 years it will double again. That means that in 30 years' time the world's population will have quadrupled in the lifetime of a 70-year-old person.
That is why, with the best will in the world—I know that it was not mentioned in a tendentious way—the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) was being a little complacent when he intervened on my hon. Friend the Member for South Hams. Of course science may solve the problem, but it is precisely to ensure that people who are in a position to influence world events do so that we are having this debate. It is crucial that the issue should not just he left for wise men to come to the right conclusions about. It must be constantly repeated for people to realise the enormous importance and priority that must be attached to it. We do that within the aid programme.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: The hon. Gentleman accuses me of being complacent. All that I was pointing out was that the assumptions are predicated on the bases of existing technology. Inevitably, there will be technological advance which may to some extent mitigate matters.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I accept that, but the important point of my hon. Friend's contribution is to ensure that people address the issue.
Our aid programme spending on direct population activities has grown fourfold since 1981 and it was £26 million in 1991. That is a 55 per cent. increase during the past two years. I gave the percentage figures earlier.
We plan to do more. By next year we intend to have established at least 15 new projects aimed specifically at strengthening the coverage and quality of family planning and maternal health services, improving the reliability of contraceptive supplies and enabling women to take greater control over their lives. We are on course to achieve that target.
It is inevitable that population policy should play a large and growing part in our aid programme. It is precisely because the rich world has been successful in humanitarian relief from famine of the kind experienced in Africa and described by by hon. Friend that we must pay particular attention to population principles.
We attach particular importance to some guiding principles in our population aid. First, individuals, and

women in particular, should be entirely free and able to choose for themselves when to have children. Secondly, those choices should be fully informed and not subject to pressure or coercion of any kind. Thirdly, the quality of family planning services, as well as their availability, must be improved if they are to win people's confidence.
Let me say a little about the ODA's support for multilateral population agencies such as the UNFPA, which was mentioned by both the hon. Member for Cynon Valley and my hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Clifton-Brown). A major part of our assistance is channelled through the multilateral population programmes. Our support for the United Nations Population Fund has increased by more than 50 per cent. over the past two years, to £9 million in 1992. That is a substantial increase. Dr. Nafis Sadik, the UNFPA's executive director, has publicly expressed her appreciation of the United Kingdom's example to other donors.
Our support for the International Planned Parenthood Federation has also grown, to £8 million this year. In 1990, our contribution to UNFPA amounted £6 million. It was paid over two periods, in 1990 and at the beginning of the calendar year 1991. The hon. Lady seemed to want to establish that a cut had been made in 1990; in fact, the money was paid over two calendar years but in the same financial year.

Mrs. Clwyd: I have before me a table showing the United Kingdom's contributions to multilateral agencies between 1979 and 1990, in real terms. It shows that in 1979 our contribution was more than £8 million, and that it declined each year between 1979 and 1990. The Minister said that the contribution spilled over into 1991, but the 1990 figure shown here is £3 million, compared with £8 million in 1979. Until very recently, each year showed a steady decline. I do not think that anyone would congratulate the Government on that.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: The important point is that our contribution has grown significantly in the years to which I have referred.
The hon. Lady spoke of the need to educate women. Women's literacy is a vital element of any influence on population growth. There is clear evidence that better-educated women, able to receive the written message on family planning and child spacing, have smaller families, and that the children of those smaller families are healthier and better educated as a result.
Progress is being made globally in terms of population dynamics. Fertility levels are declining, as were mentioned by the hon. Lady and others. The average family size in developing countries has fallen from six to four in the past 30 years, and more than half the couples in the world are now using some form of family planning. Of course much more needs to be done to extend reproductive choice; otherwise the health and welfare of countless millions of women and children will continue to suffer and we shall be unable to prevent the world population from trebling, or even worse.
I end by quoting what was said by my right hon. and noble Friend Baroness Chalker in her important speech at Rio last month. I think that it summarises the Government's position on population very succinctly and very well:
My Government's position, is that women and men should be able to choose when to have children, and should


have the means to put their choices into effect. We know that even the poorest people in the world want to make these choices and will make them readily when given the opportunity to do so. Hundreds of millions of couples throughout the world need family planning services to exercise their right to choose. We must not fail them.
I assure the House that the Government will keep that goal —indeed, necessity—clearly in view during the period of the United Kingdom presidency and beyond.

Orders of the Day — Occupational Pension Schemes

Mr. Ken Eastham: I realise that the night is very late—or rather, the morning is very early. Nevertheless, this debate is important for many people, especially old people—pensioners. It concerns the failures not only of the Investment Management Regulatory Organisation but of the Securities and Investments Board, in what the Opposition believe is a most shameful affair.
We see many scandals nowadays. It has become almost routine that every few months there is a scandal in banking or insurance, as a result of which there is a serious loss of confidence in the country, and a feeling that the honest brokering that we always saw as part of the British tradition can no longer be expected. We seem to be becoming a set of financial spivs. Britain seems to be a spivs' paradise for people who can work the system and avoid being caught out.
The Maxwell pension fraud has often been compared with the Bank of Credit and Commerce International affair and the Barlow Clowes scandal. However, we do not believe that it is the same. The fundamental difference is that in those two other cases clients made conscious decisions to opt for the chance to gain extra interest, and therefore it could be said that, partly knowingly, they chose to take a risk. In spite of that, the Government were most considerate over the Barlow Clowes affair, even though some of the money was being invested abroad.
In contrast, the Maxwell pensioners were not even informed, let alone consulted. That adds to the insult involved in other people simply taking over. As a result of that rough treatment, all those pensioners will pay a terrible price, which will cause sheer misery for many old people. It has ruined their lives and is undoubtedly ruining their health, too.
Ultimately, many hundreds of Maxwell pensioners will have to plead with the Department of Social Security, unless the Government face their responsibilities, step in and do the right thing by them. Those pensioners do not deserve such treatment. No one can stand idly by and say that they have brought the situation upon themselves. They have not.
What has happened in recent times should give us food for thought, and should give rise to a determination on both sides of the House to take a fresh look at the pensions question. Not only with the Maxwell swindle but time after time in the past few years, we have seen company takeovers conducted with an eye on the pension funds. When the asset stripping takes place, there are great advantages to be derived if there is a handsome pension fund thrown in. Contribution holidays and other features have also been introduced without those who contribute to the schemes being consulted or allowed to express an opinion.
Ministers cannot say that they knew nothing about the Maxwell risk, because it is now public knowledge that the Department of Trade and Industry expressed serious reservations about Maxwell years ago. The Bank of England had also sounded warnings, and it was said that Maxwell was not a trustworthy enough person to run a company.
I wonder whether there are any more skeletons in the cupboard. Will other scandals emerge in a few months' time, with more workers discovering that their pension


funds have been plundered by their employers? Only time will tell. That prospect is certainly sending a shiver down the spines of many people, who wonder where it will all end.
I do some unpaid work in the House as honorary secretary of the Amalgamated Engineering Union parliamentary group. A few weeks ago, I was approached by one of the union's district secretaries. He had written to the managements of three Watford companies requesting the appointment of an engineers' trustee to their respective pension funds. He was turned down. I then wrote a courteous letter to each of the companies, expressing concern at their attitude—especially in the light of recent events.
To date, I have received only two replies, and they were both disappointing. One stated:
Given the AEU position on occupational pension schemes, the disappointment of the Parliamentary Group is not surprising. I would stress however that our intention is to abide by any present and future legislation relating to the operation of these schemes.
It went on to say that the company was
actively seeking to improve the level of understanding and confidence of pension scheme members.
However, that reply clearly implied that in the absence of any statutory changes, the company did not intend to make any of its own.
The Secretary of State for Social Security, in his statement to the House on 8 June, said that the Government were establishing an emergency £2·5 million fund for Maxwell pensioners. When we consider that several thousand pensioners are affected, one becomes extremely anxious about a sudden draw on those funds. As someone said to me, that fund of £2·5 million is, in football terms, about half Gazza's transfer fee and it has to provide for some 30,000 pensioners.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris) has taken a close interest in the matter. He told me that he had referred to the ombudsman in respect of maladministration, but that he was still waiting for a reply. I do not know whether the Government have any influence to allow them to delay the appearance of observations by the ombudsman. I hope that that is not the case. I hope that the ombudsman will clearly condemn what has happened as a result of the huge scandal.
I met some of the pensioners three or four weeks ago and I was saddened to learn that, in trying desperately to take legal steps to protect themselves, they face bills of £1 million a month in respect of court judgments. That is beyond the pale when we consider that those people paid out their money and are being further insulted because, if they have the temerity to try to use the legal options through the courts, they will possibly face massive costs.
I speak with feeling about some of the Maxwell pensioners because many Maxwell pensioners worked for the Mirror Group at Withy grove in Blackley in Manchester. They have formed a committee and earlier today I spoke to their chairman, Mr. Ken Martin. He told me that at the moment they are partly relieved because their pensions are being made up by the Mirror Group. However, the proviso is that they will be made up only so long as the group is in profit. If the group has a sudden nose dive and falls into recession, will that hit the pensions? If the company decides to spend money on new plant and equipment, which can be vey expensive, will the pensioners fail to receive their returns?
There is obviously no guarantee for the pensioners and it is certainly a most hit-and-Miss affair. I hope that the Minister will be able to speak with confidence and reassure me about some of my constituents who are on the edge and do not know whether they will still he receiving a pension, to which they are entitled and for which they have paid, in three months' time. If the Mirror Group encounters difficulties, how will they make up for that loss of pension?
I was tipped off earlier this evening that a reply had finally appeared in the Library to a parliamentary question tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell). He asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer certain questions about the Securities and Investments Board and IMRO. I took it upon myself to take some photocopies of the reply, which was published today. It is a long reply, which makes us realise that that we are on to something very big. Normally, replies from Secretaries of State are about two sentences long, but the Chancellor's reply is about three pages long.
A couple of extracts are worth spotlighting. The right hon. Gentleman states:
SIB's assessment concludes that there were serious deficiencies in the supervision of IMRO".
On the following page, he states:
IMRO was not, and is not, responsible for ensuring that pension fund trustees respect their wider obligations under trust law. Moreover, effective regulation must in the final analysis involve the active co-operation of the private sector".
It appears that, if there is no co-operation by the private sector, there is nothing that we can do. That is outrageous.
The other document that was made available tonight is the Securities and Investments Board press release, which I have not read in great detail as it is several pages long. However, one or two points bounce out. In part, the first page states:
IMRO accepts that its supervision of these Maxwell companies fell short of the standards that should he achieved by a financial services regulator.
The second page contains the comment—this one really stunned me—that
it was unduly ready to rely on the good faith and professionalism of those with whom it dealt".
It is like the old boy network. People were expected to do certain things and act like little gentlemen, but they did not. When people dip their fingers in the till, they do not always act like gentlemen and they are not always concerned.
The press release mentions good faith and professionalism. We are entitled to something better than that comment. The press release refers to
an alertness to information in the public domain (including in the media), and an application of a spirit of critical enquiry in relation to assurances or information given.
Everyone seemed to know what was going on—nudge, nudge. Nobody dared do anything because big money people threaten to take people to court if they dare to question what is going on.
One or two pages later—I wish to highlight one or two observations that I made as a layman—the press release states:
as a matter of urgency, to produce proposals for strengthening:
the experience, skills mix and organisation of its monitoring staff.
That indicates that there was little skills mix and experience in the past. I wonder what the SIB has been doing to give IMRO such responsibilities.
My last quote from the document seems to let the cat out of the bag. The document says:


Andrew Large, the SIB chairman, said:
`The fact that such a massive fraud could be carried out reflects badly on the United Kingdom corporate financial system as a whole, as well as on a number of institutions and individuals within that system.'
In other words, it reflected on a set of what I would call financial spivs. We have to make sure that such cases are not repeated. The only place that it can be done is Parliament. I do not believe that self-regulation can work when people are dealing with hundreds of millions of pounds of other people's money.
To conclude my remarks on this terrible scandal, we must call for a realistic grant from the Government. They are not faultless in the matter. They made arrangements for the Barlow Clowes victims. If anything, the Maxwell pensioners have a better case than the Barlow Clowes people had. It is not unreasonable to expect some compensation from IMRO. When I say compensation, I am not thinking about petty cash. It cannot give pensioners £2 million of £3 million and say, "That's your lot." We are talking about a massive fraud. We are talking about hundreds of millions of pounds. We should consider some form of penalty for IMRO for its incompetence and certainly its slackness in protecting the interests of the pensioners.
It will be years before ordinary working people regain confidence in pensions schemes—that is, if ever they do. What is more, I sincerely believe that the Government have some moral responsibilities in the matter. We hope that the Minister will make a statement tonight which is worthy of being passed on to the unfortunate pensioners.

Mr. Paul Boateng: I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Blackley (Mr. Eastham) for initiating the debate. He has done his constituents—several of whom, as he said, are affected by the Maxwell scandal—and the House a considerable service in enabling us to respond to his debate. It comes on the day after the formal response by the Securities and Investments Board to the Investment Management Regulatory Organisation report; so my hon. Friend's debate is in every way timely as well as welcome.
I shall respond to several matters which arise from my hon. Friend's speech and relate that to the SIB response. It was clear from a reading of the SIB response to the IMRO report that at one stage the SIB considered withdrawing recognition of IMRO. It decided instead that IMRO
should be retained based on appropriate strengthening".
That strengthening is nowhere defined in the SIB's response. It would be helpful to know how it is proposed that IMRO should be strengthened, what role the Government intend to play in that and what action they propose to take.
My hon. Friend referred, and went straight to the point in so doing, to the position in which IMRO found itself. That position is criticised by the SIB. IMRO failed to have its ear to the ground to take note of what is described as "market talk" and should have been more sceptical about the information that was given to it.
Had IMRO paid more attention to market talk, and been more sceptical, it might have been able to see what

other people suspected about Robert Maxwell's operations—and what IMRO clearly neither saw nor suspected —and the extent of that massive fraud. The SIB said that it
views this with particular concern as the availability of such practical knowledge and alertness inside the regulators is a key feature of our"—
the United Kingdom's—
regulatory system.
When that is not found to be available, it undermines that system.
If the present system is to be retained, we must hear from the Government—and those who maintain that the system should be retained in more or less its present form —how we can ensure that its basis is not undermined as a result of IMRO's failures in the Maxwell case.
The purpose of the present mix of statutory and self-regulation is contained and underpinned by the belief that IMRO, and the self-regulatory mechanism, is more desirable because it is closer to the market and is therefore more able to respond to what goes on in it. If, as would appear to be the case, that closeness is no guarantee of scepticism, or of being aware of the whisperings in the market and taking action accordingly, that calls into question the basis of the present regulatory system.
SIB goes on to say that IMRO's arrangements for granting admission to new members need "further scrutiny". Again, that begs the question: what form will that scrutiny take? What will happen when it is concluded, how long will it take, has it already started and when can Parliament expect to be advised of its outcome? So long as a question mark remains over the admission of new members, the very people to whom my hon. Friend referred—those whom the regulatory system is primarily designed to protect, people who are not necessarily sophisticated and aware of the ins and outs of the market, but who are drawn into and affected by it—cannot be sure that the regulatory bodies admit new members on a basis that is satisfactory in terms of their bona fides and their providence, and their confidence in the system is undermined.
Another key matter, as the SIB points out, is that IMRO needs to strengthen its rules on the handling of private interests of board members. That is certainly so and was evident in aspects of the Maxwell scandal which, with good cause, gave rise to public concern.
We believe that the SIB is in its own way as much to blame in this matter as IMRO. It was responsible for devising the principles of self-regulation, including the system whereby the self-regulatory organisations assess their own performance rather than subjecting themselves to outside examination. That is why my hon. Friend was absolutely right to link the SIB with the debate on the role of IMRO. They cannot be separated in this matter and both must bear a degree of culpability.
We have heard and read what the SIB says about the future of IMRO—we do not believe that it can survive. By postponing the inevitable, as the SIB does by its response, it does the system of regulation no service. We need to simplify the regulatory structure. We believe that we should have just one SRO for retail investment business and one to deal with the rest of the industry. In our view, that is the only way forward and the only way in which to ensure that confidence in the system is restored.
The Government must also address a number of other important issues. We would set them a number of tasks in


relation to the regulation of businesses managing pension fund investments. There is no room for tardiness, no room for a wait-and-see approach. The public demand expedition in this matter and I am afraid that that has not always been apparent in the Government's approach. There has been complacency. We can only hope that the transfer of aspects of responsibility from the Department of Trade and Industry to the Treasury shows the Government's determination to get to grips with the issues.
It is good to see the Economic Secretary to the Treasury in his place at seven minutes past 4 o'clock. I am used to seeing him at this time because of our time together in the Committee considering the Finance Bill. In fact, during that Committee stage, I saw more of the hon. Gentleman than I did my spouse—much to her chagrin. I look forward to hearing what he has to say.
We need to ensure that the responsibilities of all the regulatory authorities are clear, consistent and comprehensive. We need to provide for all investment business to be scrutinised adequately and continually, not only when such businesses are initially granted a licence. We need to lay down clear requirements for the other professionals involved, especially the auditors and the custodians of pension fund assets. There should be clear and regular reports to pension fund members.
My hon. Friend referred to some of his constituents who are Maxwell pensioners and who have suffered as a result of recent events. Those pension fund members are most immediately in our minds. The Government need to introduce a package that will be of immediate assistance to them. Compassion and the desire to preserve confidence in the regulatory system, the probity of our markets and the provision of financial services demand that. All those things demand action in support of the Maxwell pensioners. We look for some answers from the Government this morning and in the days to come.

The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Anthony Nelson): I have listened with great care to the comments of the hon. Members for Manchester, Blackley (Mr. Eastham) and for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng). I appreciate that both of them have raised the general but important issue of public confidence in occupational pensions, and they are right to request reassurance on this matter. I trust that what I shall say will reassure the constituents of the hon. Member for Blackley and the public generally about the probity of pension funds and the investment management thereof, and the supervisory arrangements for the management and administration of pension funds.
Earlier today, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced that the Securities and Investments Board had published the summary of conclusions and findings of IMRO's review of its regulation of Maxwell companies—including Bishopsgate Investment Management Ltd, and London and Bishopsgate International Investment Management plc. The SIB has also published its assessment of its own and IMRO's performance in this affair and the action that both the SIB and IMRO are taking to rectify the shortcomings identified. The SIB's assessment concludes

that there were serious deficiencies in the supervision by IMRO of BIM and LBI. My right hon. Friend has placed a copy of the SIB's statement in the Library of the House.
The Government have made it clear throughout that it might not be possible for the SIB to publish the review in full. We have been advised that publication of the full review by the SIB or the Government at the present time could be severely prejudicial to criminal proceedings. The summary of findings and conclusions which the SIB has published is the most that the SIB believes it safe to publish consistent with this advice.
It may be helpful to hon. Members if I explain some of the background to this review and why it was necessary to examine thoroughly the regulatory and supervisory aspects of the investment management of Maxwell pension funds. As soon as the extent of the problems became clear last December, the SIB began conducting with IMRO a detailed review of IMRO's exercise of its regulatory responsibilities for BIM and LBI. It was essential to ensure that the review was comprehensive and thorough. The review deals with serious issues and the SIB needed to consider the findings carefully in order to assess the discharge of its responsibilities under the Financial Services Act 1986. My right hon. Friend received the SIB's assessment of its own and IM RO's performance only a few days ago, and asked the SIB to clarify a number of further issues raised by the IMRO review. The conclusions have been announced just as soon as this work was completed.
The central conclusion of the review is that IMRO fell short of the high standards which it properly expected of itself. In its own words:
IMRO's verdict on itself is 'not good enough'.
The review concludes that BIM and LBI were properly admitted to membership, and that IMRO's admission procedures were adequately thorough. At the same time, the review concluded that monitoring was applied over-literally and without adequate senior control and review, and that when "high risk" members were identified, this was not always followed through by adequate monitoring thereafter. IMRO also accepts there were lapses of judgment, inadequate alertness in picking up signs of possible trouble and failure to relate diverse pieces of information.
On the positive side, the review notes that IMRO's monitoring procedures have been reviewed over the past six months; that IMRO has already put in hand some organisational changes and a modified system is being introduced to identify and focus resources on areas of higher risk. The review also notes that further re-examination is being undertaken and that IMRO will increase and strengthen the resources that it devotes to monitoring. In addition, the SIB has requested the IMRO board, as a matter of urgency, to produce proposals for strengthening its monitoring and other aspects, with which I will detail later.
The Government view the shortcomings identified in the SIB's assessment with serious concern and attach importance to the need for early action to ensure that the regulatory system is implemented more effectively.
However, neither regulator nor the system of regulation can guarantee that all fraud will be prevented or identified. The Maxwell affair was, as my right hon. Friend made clear in his statement, wholly exceptional—the vast majority of pension funds have served their members well. Furthermore, the IMRO review covers a relatively limited part of the Maxwell story. Under the Financial Services


Act, IMRO's role in supervising pension funds was to regulate and authorise pension fund managers. IM RO was not, and is not, responsible for ensuring that pension fund trustees respect their wider obligations under trust law. Moreover, effective regulation must in the final analysis involve the active co-operation of the private sector, including the professional advisers, financial institutions and others, all of which have their own responsibilities.
IMRO's performance also raises questions about the SIB's monitoring of IMRO and its general oversight of the self-regulatory organisations under the Financial Services Act. Both those issues were raised by the hon. Member for Blackley. My right hon. Friend has therefore asked Mr. Andrew Large, the SIB's new chairman, to conduct his own review of how the SIB carries out its regulatory responsibilities.
My right hon. Friend has also discussed with the chairman of the SIB the need to strengthen the implementation in practice of regulatory standards. Mr. Large fully understands the urgency and importance of that task. My right hon. Friend has asked to be kept closely in touch with progress on the further work, reviews and improvements that are now in hand.
The SIB and IM RO are effecting a number of measures immediately. A number of changes in the senior personnel of IM RO are taking place. First, Mr. Charles Nunnely, the deputy chairman of Robert Fleming, will chair the board of IMRO until a permanent success to Mr. Nissen has been appointed, and IM RO will also be appointing a new chief executive. Secondly, IMRO has put in hand organisational changes and will strengthen its monitoring resources. Thirdly, IMRO has issued a consultation document on changes to its regime for occupational pension scheme managers. Fourthly, at SIB's behest, the IMRO board is producing, as a matter of urgency, proposals for strengthening the experience, skill and organisation of its monitoring staff, its arrangements for dealing promptly and effectively with potential and actual investor risk and its rules on board members' interests.
For its part, the SIB wil review urgently IMRO's admission procedures and practices to ensure that its arrangements are satisfactory. It will also review IMRO's approach to monitoring its members, to ensure that the lessons of this particular case are applied generally.
Under its new chairman, Mr. Andrew Large, the SIB will re-examine the conduct of its own regulatory responsibilities and how to ensure that the lessons of Maxwell are taken into account in ensuring that all the regulators supervised by the SIB meet their responsibili-ties. In addition, the SIB intends to explore wider issues which fall within the responsibility of other regulators. Those issues include: a review of the supervision of the custody of investors assets; a review with the SROs and the accountancy organisations of the relations between auditors and regulators, particularly the mechanisms by which auditors pass relevant information to the Financial Services Act regulators; and arrangements to ensure effective communication between supervisory authorities.
It is to the credit of the SIB and IM RO that they have carried out this self-critical examination of their performance, published the findings for all to examine and presented positive proposals to improve regulation in future. [Interruption.]
It is easy for the hon. Member for Brent, South to be somewhat derisive about that, but we would be the first to criticise bodies that presented a whitewash report of their part in any scandal or collapse. The fact that IMRO and the SIB have been self-critical and have pointed to the need for changes and improvements in some areas is to their credit. The House should be grateful for that. It is to be hoped that others in the private sector, including the professional advisers and financial institutions, will examine their own roles as thoroughly and openly.
In this and earlier debates, hon. Members have asked whether the Government have responsibilities in this matter. First, it has been suggested that the DTI should not have granted LBI a principal's license under the Prevention of Fraud (Investments) Act 1958. The hon. Member for Blackley spoke about that. I shall give him the facts. The licence came into effect on 26 April 1988 and lapsed on 29 April 1988 when the Financial Services Act came into force. The directors were notified as Andrew Smith, Kevin Maxwell and Larry Trachtenberg. Robert Maxwell did not become a director of LBI until June 1988. The DTI did not license Bishopsgate Investment Management Ltd. The grounds for refusing a licence under the legislation then in force were, in fact, very limited. Unless there were previous convictions for fraud or dishonesty, or any other circumstances likely to lead to improper conduct of business, there was not sufficient reason for refusing a licence.
Under the Financial Services Act, however, IMRO was required to satisfy itself that the applicants were "fit and proper" to carry out an investment business and that they continued to be so. The fact that LBI was licensed briefly by the DTI did not in any way reduce the obligation of IM RO to conduct rigorous checks before admitting LBI to membership or to monitor LBI's performance.
In publishing the findings and conclusions of the IMRO review, the SIB has made it clear that IMRO complied with all its normal procedures in admitting LBI to membership and did not rest on the DTI licence.
The Leader of the Opposition has made several allegations that IM RO warned the Government that it could not do its job properly because of problems over the relationship between the Financial Services Act regime and trust law. This is quite wrong. In his statement, my right hon. Friend made it clear that he has looked into these allegations. Neither he nor the SIB has found any evidence to substantiate them. IM RO and the SIB made representations to the DTI over a number of years about the legal uncertainty which they believed was created by the interaction of the Financial Services Act and trust law. However, there was no suggestion that that uncertainty posed a threat to investor protection, and the SIB's conclusion is that neither the legal uncertainties created by the relationship between the Financial Services Act and trust law nor the existence of IMRO's special occupational pensions scheme regime made any material difference to IMRO's regulation of the Maxwell pension fund companies.
Much has been said about Professor Hayton's review. What it actually says is that pension fund regulation should he left to trust law. Following Professor Hayton's report, the DTI told IM RO and the SIB not to rely solely on trust law for regulating the management of occupational pensions schemes, and that it was for them to operate the system of regulation under the Financial Services Act to deliver adequate investor protection.
Neither IMRO nor the SIB at any time advised the DTI that it disagreed with this advice or was unable to deliver the degree of investor protection required.

Mr. Boateng: Is the Minister satisfied with the current state of trust law, on which the self-regulators are obliged to rely? If he is not, when and how does he propose to reform it?

Mr. Nelson: The Goode committee will consider such issues in its wider review. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security announced the establishment of the review, which will be thorough and wide-ranging. I am sure that it will examine carefully the question of trust law and the proper ambit of statutory law. I acknowledge the importance of these issues, and it is vital that they are considered carefully and that the House subsequently has an opportunity to examine any recommendations because they will have major implications for the structure and liabilities of pension funds and their trustees. I hope that that satisfies the hon. Gentleman that the matter is continuing to be considered. It will, I am sure, be a central part of the Goode review.
It has been suggested that, in view of the shortcomings identified by the IMRO review, the Government should now pay compensation. The Government have made their position on compensation quite clear. Everyone sym-pathises with the hardship and uncertainty suffered by victims of fraud, but no Government can accept a duty to make good losses resulting from fraud or theft of savings. The taxpayer cannot guarantee to make good losses in such cases. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security has announced, however, a series of measures to help current and future pensioners, including emergency funding to underpin those Maxwell pensions at immediate risk.
Five positive measures are being taken to help current and future pensioners: first, emergency funding to underpin the Maxwell pensions at immediate risk is being made available by the Government; secondly, since 8 June, a special unit working with trustees and others to secure the speedy return of assets and the rebuilding of funds has been set up; thirdly, a trust is being established into which the private sector can pay voluntary contributions; fourthly, as I said, a comprehensive review of the framework of pension law is under way; and, finally, proposals have been announced on the introduction of employer debt provisions.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security has made it clear that the priority must be to identify, locate and establish ownership of the stolen assets and to secure their return. The Government want to encourage and enable the financial institutions which have profited from Maxwell to assist the pensioners who have lost in this affair. Only those on the Opposition Front Bench seem to feel that this will be helped if the Government decide to make good some of the shortfall. There is no question of that.
It is clear that the chain of responsibilities had failings at many links, including trustees, banks, auditors, and investment advisers. The Government are doing all that they can to ensure that the assets of the Maxwell companies' pension funds are restored. We believe that all who have profited from Maxwell must meet their full responsibilities to help the Maxwell pensioners. Only those

on Opposition Front Bench seem to think that this will be helped by the Government stepping in to offer compensation.

Mr. Boateng: And the pensioners themselves.

Mr. Nelson: The position of the pensioners themselves varies. As has been said, some of them are being provided for by the acceptance of responsibility and continuation of payment of funds. Of course, for the time being, those pensioners are certainly content with that position. I acknowledge that there may be some uncertainty about what the future holds when a pension is not fully funded and is reliant on the commitment of the company involved. However, the Governnment have proposed a package of financial help and have instigated a review, which is as much as they can and should do in this instance. Such measures are to be warmly welcomed by contributors to and beneficiaries of pension funds at large and, in particular, by the Maxwell pensioners.
No doubt the Goode committee will consider whether a wider compensation scheme should be established for occupational pension schemes. In the meantime, the Government are not prepared to pre-empt the committee's discussions or anticipate its recommendations in any way.
I turn finally to the regulatory framework, to which the hon. Member for Brent, South referred in his closing remarks. Perhaps it will help some Opposition Members if I explain how it works. The Financial Services Act 1986 introduced a new framework for investor protection, including wide-ranging statutory powers and new criminal offences. Responsibility under the Act is shared between the Treasury, which is responsible for the Act as a whole, the Securities and Investments Board, to which responsibility for the discharge of statutory functions under the Act has been transferred as the designated agency, and the regulatory and practitioner bodies, including IMRO, which are recognised by the SIB to discharge its statutory functions.
IMRO is responsible for ensuring that, in carrying on investment business, its members meet standards of honesty, competence and solvency. It is the SIB'S job to be satisfied that IMRO continues to meet the criteria for self-regulatory bodies under the Act. These include having adequate arrangements and resources for the effective monitoring of its members and for enforcement and compliance with its rules and procedures. The Treasury is responsible for ensuring that the SIB is able and willing, as the designated agency under the Act, to discharge the statutory functions which have been transferred to it.
I do not accept that the Maxwell case demonstrates that the supervisory structure itself is deficient. The failings identified by IMRO and the SIB are shortcomings of implementation. The integrity and success of other businesses authorised under the Financial Services Act show that the regime can and does work well.
I acknowledge, however, that regulatory standards need to be strengthened. I have informed the House of the steps that are being taken by the SIB and IMRO, and the steps that my right hon. Friend will be taking to ensure that the operation of the regulatory system is sufficiently strengthened to deliver effective protection to investors.
I understand full well the concerns that the case has generated. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor stressed in his statement that he will be assessing the effectiveness of all the action already taken and proposed, together with


the outcome of the SIB's further reviews. There are, of course, other issues which need to be examined, including the role of the other trustees of the Maxwell pension funds.
The lessons will need to be carefully considered to ensure that the regulatory system is sufficiently strengthened to deliver effective protection to investors, including members of pension funds. The Government are determined that all the lessons of the Maxwell affair, in its many aspects, must be learnt and implemented. My right hon. Friend and I will assess in detail over the coming months the effectiveness of the steps already taken by the SIB and IMRO, the additional action now proposed and the outcome of the SIB's further review. My right hon. Friend has promised to report back to the House.
I have spoken at some length about the Maxwell case, the review and my right hon. Friend's statement. I have done so in response to the real concerns that have been raised by the hon. Member for Blackley and the general points that he and the hon. Member for Brent, South made about public confidence in the pension industry. I hope that what I have said provides them and a wider audience with some reassurance.

Orders of the Day — Local Government Expenditure

Mr. David Wilshire: I am sure that you are well aware, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that Members who seek debates at this hour are probably either mad or feel strongly about a particular subject. In the next hour or so, I suspect that you will have the chance to decide which state of mind applies to me.
It seems that the subject needs an airing for the following reasons. Over the years, our debates about local government finance have led to repetitive legislation and repetitive failure. Every piece of legislation has resulted in continued lack of control. That has led to more legislation. The circle goes round and round.
There are appalling relations between local government and central Government and a lack of affection for local government by the public. This adds up to a shaky future for local government. That is why the subject needs an airing, but why does it need one at 4.30 am, shortly before Parliament rises for the summer recess? [Interruption.] There is a good answer to why 4.30 am—my luck ran out. If I had drawn a reasonable hour, others would have been mocked for turning up at 4.30 am and I could have gone to bed and slept soundly.
Whether at 4.30, 5.30 or 6.30 am, the issue certainly needs raising before the House rises for the summer recess. The Local Government Commission is about to embark on its review of structure and services and the Government are still examining accountability and local democracy. If those matters are being considered, finance must also be considered. They go together. One reason for the failure over the years to get local government reform right is that one minute we consider finance and the next we consider structure. Whether it is 4.30 am or not, there is a real urgency to make the point that finance needs to be considered alongside those other matters.
There may be a temptation for people to say, "Ah yes, but we have done that. We are replacing the community charge with the council tax." However, the review of the community charge and the introduction of the council tax do not constitute a review of local government finance, just a review of one bit—that is, how to raise income. My argument is about the totality of local government finance, not simply the council tax. The Government need to go further than that.
If the totality of finance is not reviewed, the work of the Local Government Commission will ultimately fail and the future of local government will stay in doubt. If it is not done in the right order, finance will dominate. If all that we do is change to the council tax and say that that is the review of finance and all else follows from it, local government will continue to be dominated by finance as an end in itself, rather than the means that it should be.
If my argument is that the totality of finance needs reviewing now, why have I applied to have a debate on expenditure control in the early hours of the morning? It is because, in all the issues involved in local government finance, expenditure control is the key political issue which must be tackled first in any complete review of local government finance. Finance is a finite resource; there is never sufficient money to go round, irrespective of the political ideology brought to bear on the problem. Yet politicians of all ideologies—my party is as bad as the others—find it desperately easy to pretend that finance is


an infinite commodity. The result is that deficits, borrowings and so on are used to postpone the day of reckoning. Sooner or later, a total lack of realism develops, which leads to absurdities such as the lease and rent back of parking meters, and the whole issue of local government finance falls into further disrepute.
Expenditure control is the key priority and action is urgently needed. Expenditure must be kept within the finances available, whether we like that or not. Until that is achieved, all other financial issues—including whether we have a council tax, rates, or whatever—are red herrings. However—this is the rub—in this day and age the public find it intolerable that all their needs cannot be met at once, which leads to politicians finding it almost impossible to grapple with the problems of expenditure control. That makes expenditure control a high-risk topic, but that is inevitable. Those who ask the Government to face up to it usually end up being unpopular, but I am resigned to that.
To obtain effective expenditure control in local government, we must first control total expenditure, and that is highly controversial. Secondly, we must control properly the allocation of all the funds involved; that, too, is highly controversial. Thirdly, we must control and maximise the value obtained from the money that we spend. That should not be so controversial, but at the moment people seem to focus on that; yet it is mainly a managerial issue. It has become controversial because politicians have homed in on it and interfered in what is primarily a management matter, ducking the first two issues.
Perhaps I may digress slightly to say how we should not seek to achieve expenditure control, and that is by fretting over income. Looking back through Hansard, one sees recent attempts at that. There were debates about whether rates are the right way in which to obtain effective control, and it will be seen that that led to the introduction of the community charge. One of the great arguments was that that would make it easier to control things because it would result in greater accountability. That was discovered not to work, so the argument was deployed that the council tax would be the right way forward.
All those debates are about income and the methods of income control which have come on the back of that. First, we had rate capping—the capping of income. That did not work. We then had charge capping—the capping of income. The history of the whole subject proves that the approach of trying to control expenditure via income is doomed to failure. Any attempt to control expenditure via income leads to ever more draconian and ever more silly attempts at expenditure control. That route must be abandoned. The bad news for the Government is that capping will not work. The only way to control local government expenditure effectively is by controlling expenditure itself. That is what politicians hate, but unfortunately they have no choice but to do it.
We should be clear about the Government's role in the process of expenditure control in local government. That, too, is a highly controversial matter. If there were others silly enough to be here at this time of the morning, they would be jumping up and down saying that any discussion of the Government's role is all about centralisation and the removal of local democracy. That point is inevitably made, but it is nonsense. That, too, is a red herring.
There are two areas of expenditure control where the Government have a primary responsiblity about which we

should be clear. The first is that, whether we like it or not, the Government have an on-going concern in all expenditure, simply because all expenditure affects the state of the economy, which means that the Government are bound to be involved. As all expenditure affects the state of the economy, that means that Government intervention in such matters is inevitable.
Again, if there were people here on the Conservative side they would be jumping up and down saying that we believe in non-intervention, but in a national economy even non-intervention has an effect on the economy. Therefore, non-intervention amounts to intervention. That particular circle will go round and round so that we end up concluding that, whether we like it or not, the Government have a role in all expenditure. We cannot get away from that. No amount of flag waving about local democracy can change that.
The second reason why the Government have a role to play in local government expenditure control is the good old principle of he who pays the piper calls the tune. Central Government currently provide some 86 per cent. of local government's money, and it follows as day follows night that the provider of such a large proportion of income will, quite properly, want an enormous say in how the money is spent. For better or worse, central Government are involved.
What should we do to control local government expenditure? I believe that there arc three requirements. First, we must be absolutely clear about the source of all the finance with which we are dealing. Secondly, we must be absolutely clear about the purpose of all expenditure. Thirdly, we must know on whose behalf the expenditure is taking place; we must be absolutely clear about that, too.
The first requirement is fundamental, for a simple reason. Each source of money requires its own method of control. Central Government, for instance, can best control their own expenditure by simply saying no. In the case of spending by private citizens, however, it is not sensible for the Government to say no; the best way of controlling private expenditure is the imposition of expenditure taxation.
One of the worst examples of categorisation by source of money is the category that we call local government expenditure—the subject of this debate. That is perhaps the best example of how not to do things. What we call local government expenditure has not one but two sources. The first is local money; the second is central Government money. The local source can be further subdivided. Local money comes in the form of local taxation, fees, charges, interest on investments, borrowing, and so forth. Each of those many sources raises different issues in regard to control, and each is best controlled in a different way. In reality, local government expenditure—the label that we apply to all that money—is a pool of funds from a number of different sources, rather than a category in itself. That must be put right.
The second requirement for the proper control of expenditure is the clarification of its purpose. Currently, huge sums are allocated in a very general way, and apportioned to a particular purpose later. The result of that process is entirely predictable: it is acrimony. The recipient of the money does with it what he thinks right; the provider, who has not got what he expected, objects —and rows break out. Hansard and the newspapers are littered with examples.
Why are we in this mess? There are two reasons. First, central Government, the provider of so much of the money, are in fact a multi-agency conglomerate with lots of different Ministries, all making their own allocations. Secondly, local government is a mini-government in its own right, and there are lots of different people deciding what to do with the money when they receive it. Each Ministry, and each council, determines its own priorities, and switches resources around as it thinks fit. Friction and muddle are inevitable in that process, and things are made worse by using the wrong approaches to try to solve that muddle. At present, attempts are made to control expenditure via the type of allocation rather than via the purpose of the expenditure.
For example, general allocations in local government are worked out using wondrous formulae. Allocations against bids, such as those for the housing improvement programme, are worked out in a general way. Allocations against bids for lumps of money or general allocations via grants are both incredibly easy to reallocate. If money is handed out in that way, we should not be surprised if it is not used for the purpose for which it was intended.
The other method is agency allocation. Motorway repair contracts are a good example of that. If money is allocated to repair the M3, it is incredibly difficult for the person who receives it to use it for any other purpose. It seems crystal clear, therefore, that we should allocate all money against specific purposes rather than shovelling it out in large sacks.
The third requirement that central Government must take on board is the need to clarify whether expenditure is being made to purchase a service or to provide a service. Those are fundamentally different functions. The test is to ask on whose behalf the expenditure is being made. Taking the fire service as an example, we must ask whether its expenditure is carried out on behalf of the Home Office or of local government. Confusion may arise, and some people may say that the money is spent on behalf of local government while others say that it is on behalf of the Home Office—but that is because many people fail to think through what local government really amounts to, and what it really does when it provides a specific service. Sometimes—as, I suggest, is true with the fire service— local government acts simply as a service delivery agent. The Home Office provides more than 85 per cent. of the money for the fire service and also sets the standard, so the Home Office is purchasing a service.
On the other hand, when local government acts as a mini-government in its own right, it is free to decide what to do. It cannot be acting in that capacity with the fire service, because it is not free to abandon its fire service or to lower the standards. One has to think that conclusion through. If we give local authorities large amounts of general money and leave them to get on with it, they will always act as mini-governments.
For example, the standard spending assessment for my county of Surrey says that the authority needs to spend a certain amount on social services, so it is given an allocation of money to spent that amount. But Surrey spends £8 million less than its allocation on social services, with the result that my mailbag is full of complaints about the poor standards of social services—yet the county still receives that money.
However, if we look on the process as one of purchasing services from local government, an authority is pinned down to acting as a contractor, not as a mini-government. Then one can control the expenditure if one provides the money, and can specify via a contract the standards that, as the provider of that money, one expects. Thus, effective expenditure control requires us to be absolutely clear when local government is acting as a contractor and when it is acting in its own right. That confusion must be sorted out.
How can central Government improve their role in the control of local government expenditure? The thought process starts with a paradox: the current arrangements appear to be designed to weaken rather than to strengthen expenditure control. The source categories are wrong and there are huge, generalised allocations—both marvellous ways of weakening control rather than strengthening it. If central Government want to control local government finance effectively, they must reorganise provision, allocate all moneys to specific services, end the use of general formulae, and specify the basis on which funds are transferred to local government.
The first step is to reorganise the provision of finance. I said that central Government is a multi-agency arrangement. The process is that central Government gather in most of their money via one Ministry—the Treasury. Many separate Ministries then decide expen-diture allocations, and the resources are then handed over to the Department of the Environment to pass on to local government.
That is a wondrously effective recipe for ineffective control. All sorts of different people have a finger in the pie. I argue that every Ministry should pass on its own funds direct to those whom it chooses to provide services. That is bad news for my hon. Friend the Minister, and I am sorry—but the Department of the Environment should be involved in handing on only money for which it is responsible, rather than in passing on money via a general allocation in respect of services in which the Home Office or the Department of Education, for example, is involved. That fundamental change must be made as quickly as possible.
The second step is for central Government to allocate all their funds to specific services and to specify and clarify the categories of service to which moneys are being allocated. The problem is that we do not get those categories right either. The general formula used now includes many categories which do not represent whole services. If money is allocated to such categories, attempts to exercise control become fragmented—with the result that the public's needs are not met, services are duplicated, and there is a great deal of waste. That is a recipe for disaster.
If service categories are too big, other problems arise. Education provides a classic example. As a label for local government purposes, it covers a wide range of provision —including nursery services, primary schools, secondary schools, school lunches, clothing grants, and special help for the poor and handicapped. They are all separate services, and they each raise different issues of service provision and control. If progress is to be made, they all require a different approach and must not be lumped together.
Education is seen as an all-embracing term, but for a local government councillor, it does not encompass private schools or universities. Muddle comes out of that. Large categories also mean different things to different people.
When councillors meet a Minister and say, "We want to talk about education," they mean schools, lunches, clothing grants, and special schools. However, the Minister in the Department of Education to whom they were speaking would not mean the same thing when he or she replied. The Minister would mean schools and universities, but the councillors would not be talking about universities. While listening to the councillors saying that it was very difficult to help the handicapped, the Minister would have no right to discuss that issue. Councillors would mean one set of services and the Minister would mean something else. That would be a dialogue between two people using different languages. Using too large categories can produce that kind of muddle and that must be sorted out.
The Government must move away from using formulas which are the consequence of having too large categories and simply shovelling out large amounts of money. Because they do not work, they become ever more complex and silly. The best example of that at the moment is the fact that the allocations of all councils in England have been affected in the current year by the number of tourists in London. That cannot be sensible or a recipe for effective service delivery or financial control.
The Government must also specify the basis on which they are handing over the money. By that I mean that they have three choices: they can tell local government that they are handing the money over as a grant; they can tell local government that they are lending the money and that they want it back at some stage in the future; or they can say that they are paying local government to do something for them.
If one gives someone a grant or loan, one puts a huge distance between oneself and the person who receives the grant or loan. If that distance is established, it is almost impossible to control what happens after one has made the grant. If one makes a payment for something, however, one maintains that link. If one focuses on making payments and treating local government as a service delivery contractor, one will have maximum control of expenditure and maximum input into the standards received.
For example, if one makes a general grant to a local education authority, one has very little control over what happens in that LEA, but if one makes a payment to a grant-maintained school, one has a great deal of say in what happens in that school.
It follows that deciding who purchases each service is at the heart of getting effective expenditure control. However, local government seems to be obsessed with what it controls, even though it provides only 15 per cent. of the finance. In other words, it does not control what it thinks it controls, but only a very small part of it. That thought process must end. I believe that in future local government should control only what it actually purchases with its own money. It should not control what it purchases on behalf of central Government using central Government money. That amounts to a fundamental change in the role of local government.
We must be careful when we ask ourselves who should purchase what. My argument is that those who decide what needs will be met, and what standards should be achieved, should be the people who purchase the service. If we break that link and the person doing the purchasing does not decide the needs or standards, there will be an

endless dispute about the adequacy of money, about value for money and about standards. That is exactly what we have now.
Although that approach is radical, I believe that it is the only way to achieve what we seek. Turning every central Government Ministry into the purchaser of its own services would enable each Ministry to decide who to use. Of course, the Ministries will want to continue to use local government when local government seems to he the best way to deliver the service, but they will have a choice. That route will maximise effectiveness and improve value for money, because there will he a much closer specification of what is expected from the allocation of money than there is at present.
There will be some who say that such an argument appears to preclude any local input. That is the centralising argument which will crop up from time to time. Nevertheless, there is a role for local government and for local governing bodies, and that must be strengthened; however, I would digress if I went down that track.
Those proposals add up to a radical overhaul of local government finance. Central Government must assume responsibility for their own expenditure. Each Ministry must do its own purchasing. Local government, when acting as a service delivery agent, must compete for the work that it wants to carry out. Each service delivery organisation, be it local government or the voluntary sector, must have it own governing body. The impact of that for local government is clearly profound. Some say that it will take away power, but the impact on local government will he to free local government from its preoccupation with the limited range of services that it currently provides.
Local government will be free to play a monitoring role in all local services, whether or not it provides them, which is a great enhancement of the role of local government and would give it scope to have an input into meeting all local needs. Even if local government does not provide the service, it will have a role in saying how such needs should be met.
The result for local government is not bad news, but good news. It will make local government focus on the needs of the people, which is what it should be doing. It will make councillors' work much more rewarding and much more respected by the public. It will also give central Government Ministries far better control over their own standards. It will mean that central Government will be seen for what they are—the source of help when a service is provided and when central Government pay for it. Councils will be free to spend their own funds in any way they wish. For the money that they raise locally, it will be much easier for them to set their own priorities. Local taxation will be drastically cut and, with a bit of luck and a following wind, there will be far fewer debates on local taxation. The real bottom line of that train of thought is that, for the first time in a very long time, we shall achieve expenditure control in local government.
The benefits of such a radical rethink are huge. We shall have an increased diversity of services, greater sensitivity to needs, better management, increased competition, reduced centralisation, and greater accountability to the public. We shall actually have stronger local democracy, because it will be more respected, and there will be more scope for citizens to do their own thing and to take part. That list of benefits was to be found in every party manifesto at the previous general election, so my points


should not upset any hon. Members, whether they support my party or somebody else's party. That radical rethink leads to what all manifestos want. Therefore, I not only urge my hon. Friend the Minister to go down that track but hope that Labour Members and others will encourage him.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Robin Squire): I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire) for the lucid way in which he made his case. At the very least, he has ensured that, in years to come, if I am asked whether I have lost sleep over control of local authority finance, I can answer in the affirmative.
My hon. Friend and I go back a number of years. On the Environment Select Committee, we somehow contrived not to discuss that issue, but we have obviously enjoyed the experience today. I have a certain sense of déjà vu coming to another debate about the control of local government expenditure so soon after we have completed the capping round for 1992–93. My hon. Friend has, however, taken this opportunity to raise a number of significant issues about the way forward.
I am, of course, happy to set out why we have attached and will continue to attach great importance to the level of local government spending. Although there is a good deal of common ground between us, I feel that the approach which he advocated, which would involve a much greater role for central Government as the purchaser of services that are currently the responsibility of local Government, has distinctively different emphases from the vision which my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State recently expressed as to how we see the future of local government.
The starting point of expenditure control must be that Governments are responsible for the overall management of the economy. I know that I am at one with my hon. Friend on that point. The Government are concerned with levels of borrowing, spending and taxation at national and local level. There is nothing new in that. Parliament has always exercised control over the financing of local government as regards the nature of local government's sources of revenue and the extent to which local expenditure is supported by central Government.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) made this point to the House with his accustomed eloquence on 5 December 1990 when he said:
in the end, power lies in this House … no Chancellor of the Exchequer can tolerate a challenge to his authority to manage the economy with prudence and discipline."—[Official Report, 5 December 1990; Vol. 182, c. 319.]
Local authority revenue expenditure, whether it is financed by national or local taxation, affects the overall burden of taxation in the economy. Local authority taxation—whether community charges under the current system or council taxes from next April—feeds directly into the retail prices index. Indeed, what I might call the twin purposes of capping are to contribute to the control of public spending, thereby continuing the pressure on inflation and maintaining economic progress, and to limit the burden of national and local taxation.
It is worth reminding ourselves that local authorities are responsible for more than a quarter of all public

spending. As my hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government and Inner Cities told the House during the recent debate on the capping order, local government expenditure is now running at some £65 billion. That is well over £1,000 for every man, woman and child every year.
The need for some control over that volume of expenditure is scarcely a new idea. I recall that it was a Labour Secretary of State for the Environment who declared all those many years ago—indeed, even before the hon. Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng) and I were thought of in political terms—"The party's over." He secured a considerable reduction in the level of local government current and capital expenditure.

Mr. Paul Boateng: When the then Secretary of State said of local government that the party was over, I am sure that he did not mean that the wake was about to begin. The tragedy for local government under the stewardship of the Conservative party is that that stewardship precipitated the end of local government as we knew it and the beginning of something different, totally centralised, grossly under-resourced and ill-equipped to do its job.

Mr. Squire: I reject that view of what has happened in local government. As I said not a moment ago, when local government spends some £1,000 each year for every man, woman and child, I would have to go a long way to recognise the description that the hon. Gentleman gives.
We take the view that it remains reasonable in the interests of our wider economic goals to expect local authorities to play their part in restraining their expenditure, just like others, throughout the public and private sectors.
Indeed, I may embarrass my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne by quoting back at him, with approval, some remarks that he made at the time of the capping debate in 1990. That debate, which I am sure that many hon. Members will recall, was a somewhat highly charged affair, full of speeches about savage cuts in services which came to assume the generic, if not necessarily elegant, title of "bleeding stumps". His comments then were a salutary corrective to some of the wilder allegations and, if I may make so bold, form an excellent summary of the Government's position. He said:
The debate … is not about how local government is financed …. It is not about the structure and size of local government … Nor is it directly about services themselves … However important services might be, and I do not seek to underplay them … This debate is about how much local government spends … at the end of the day we cannot spend what we have not got.
In 1990–91, local authorities used the move to the new system as a smokescreen to disguise vastly increased expenditure. Spending rose by 13·5 per cent. and during the two-year period to April 1991, spending had risen by about a quarter. That was, I am afraid, the result of allowing authorities to decide what level of expenditure they felt appropriate. Such increases could only be described as staggering.
With the fundamental shift from local to national taxation for the funding of local services, which my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced in the 1991 Budget, we were even more determined to ensure that there should be no repetition of such overspending.
I am happy to report that those extra resources from national taxpayers have not been frittered away. Although


I am sure that that is in large part due to a greater sense of realism on the part of authorities, it is also because we signalled our determination that it should not happen.
For 1991–92 and 1992–93, we took action to announce provisional capping criteria, so that authorities were aware of our intentions before setting their budgets. As a result, local authority spending came out only about 1 per cent. above the amount for which we had made provision in the settlement.
This year, more than 400 authorities have budgeted within, or very close to, the limits implied by our provisional criteria. That is a result in which local government can take considerable satisfaction. It is also one which shows that some of the more hyperbolic statements made from time to time about capping are, to put it mildly, exaggerated.
That is where we are. There is certainly room for improvement. We would wish to see—and my right hon. and learned Friend has expressed the hope—the year when no authority will be capped. For 1993–94, we have signalled our intention to follow the precedent of this year and the preceding one, and to announce provisional capping criteria in the autumn, so that those can be taken into account by authorities in the process of setting their budgets for the year.
Next year is, of course, an important one. My hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government and Inner Cities mentioned in the debate on the capping order that local government needs an independent tax which can be brought in at sensible and affordable levels. Next year is the first year of the council tax. Some things will change. Perhaps most significantly—unlike both the rates and the community charge—the council tax is both a property tax and a personal tax. But, although the nature of the tax will change, the wider context will not.
We remain committed to the principle that local authorities should not be able to obscure their true levels of expenditure from their domestic taxpayers. That is had for business and had for accountability. We consider that there should be stable grant system to equalise bills throughout the country. The council tax system will not be accompanied by significant changes to the revenue support grant system. We remain committed to the principle that overspending against standard spending assessment should come home directly to those who pick up the bill. But we are also determined to safeguard the position of local residents, as both local and national taxpayers. We have taken powers in the Local Government Finance Act 1992, which are analogous to the current charge-capping powers.
Those with good memories may, however, recall that, for the first year of capping under the community charge, we used only the "absolute excessiveness" criterion—the comparison between an authority's budget and its SSA. That allowed many very significant increases in budget from the last year of the old rating system to go largely unchecked. I should therefore mention that our powers under the 1992 Act allow us to specify a base position at the start of the new system for measuring increases in budget for 1993–94. That is important.
Looking further ahead, we can expect the structure of local government to change as the Local Government Commission goes about its work. Although organisation and functions may alter, there is no reason why local taxpayers should be exposed to higher bills as a result. They will be receiving the same services albeit, perhaps,

from a new authority. Nor is there any reason why new authorities should be removed for the first year of their existence from the capping regime, as far as increases in budget are concerned. Thus, for the years after 1993–94, we shall also be able to specify a base position for measuring increases in budget, where there has been structural or functional change. However, although we must ensure that we are able to take action, as I have said, we very much hope that it will not be necessary to do so.
My hon. Friend has suggested that the achievement of financial control is concerned with three issues. The first is the control of total expenditure, and as I have said, I think that we are at one on that. Secondly, my hon. Friend suggests that the allocation of funding between competing needs should be directly controlled. His concern is that purchasers of services should be identified and have responsibility for the necessary resources; thus, central Government would assume full control of much expenditure and would directly purchase those services that it funds. Local government would raise only that amount of funding required to meet community needs that are truly local.
My hon. Friend's third main point relates to the importance of maximising value for money. It is a point closely related to the purchasing of services and is something to which I wish to return a little later. My immediate concern is with his proposals for the allocation of responsibility for certain services and their associated funding. That issue is, at heart, about local accountability and responsibility. My hon. Friend had some words of wisdom in the capping debate in 1990 with which I cannot but agree. He said:
Local councils are best at assessing local need, and in responding to it. They are best at service assessment and arranging service provision. Parliament exists to settle what is best for the nation … the Government will settle what expenditure limits there must be, and local councils, which arc closest to the people, must sort out the priorities."—[Official Report, 11 July 1990; Vol 176, c. 416–420.]
We do not wish to tell local councils how to order their priorities or which services to provide.

Mr. Wilshire: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Squire: Yes, but I do not want to do so too often.

Mr. Wilshire: I should like to draw my hon. Friend's attention to the fact that central Government, quite properly, do not leave those things to local government. If I understand the situation correctly, Derbyshire police force, which is a local government matter, has been refused a certificate of competence. The Government have stepped in, entirely correctly, because they recognise that certain things cannot be left to local government although the money goes to it. Is that not the point that I have been trying to make?

Mr. Squire: I draw a distinction between the monitoring of areas of local authority expenditure. including the example that my hon. Friend cited, that will often fall either on Government or on a Government agency, and, quite separately, the centralised funding of local authority services where, as my hon. Friend knows and as I am seeking to make clear, the Government believe that local authorities should be able to determine their priorities. It is the proper exercise of that local discretion that forms the basis of local accountability by which we all set considerable store.
As my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State made clear in his recent speech to the Association of District Councils' annual conference, we do not need to imagine that central and local government will agree about everything to accept that there can and should be a good working relationship between the two within a broad consensus. There will never be complete agreement about spending. That is perhaps too much to ask. However, the vast majority of authorities have accepted the need— albeit, perhaps unwelcome—for restraint and the need to set sensible budgets which local people and the country can afford. But within those broad constraints there is considerable scope for authorities to improve the quality and the value of their services while setting reasonable levels of council tax.
I am sure that the majority of authorities no longer consider that there is a pot of gold from which an endless supply of resources can be provided. They accept that it is for the Government and Parliament to decide what the country can afford and for local authorities themselves to use that provision to the best possible effect. In doing so, they should be mindful not only of costs but of the quality of the service provided. Through our powers to cap. we can exert restraint on the amount that authorities can raise from local people so that they are not soaked. Through our other initiatives to encourage greater efficiency, particularly the client-provider split and increased competition, we can move towards securing a better return for those resources.
I know that my hon. Friend has consistently argued that councils should be representative of the whole range of local services rather than those which are currently the responsibility of local government. Our views about the future structure of local government will he well known to my hon. Friend. He has made a valuable contribution to the final form of the legislation and his views have helped to shape the guidance which we will issue to the Commission. I know that there are still differences between us on some specific points, but certainly we share the same goals. We want the authorities emerging from the Commission's work to be well placed to address the needs of local people. We want a structure of local government to suit the needs and wishes of local people, not the administrative convenience of service deliverers. There is nothing between us on that.
Local authorities are responsible for a wide range of functions and it is in discharging those functions that they meet or fail to meet the demands and proper expectations of their people. We therefore must have a structure of local government which enables local authorities to carry out their functions effectively and conveniently. That is not, of course, to say that the authorities must deliver all their services themselves—far from it. The best way to meet local needs is to check all the options for service delivery and to go for the best. That is the heart of our policy on the enabling role of local authorities.
Our view of the role of local government is one of facilitating the provision of services and of acting in partnership with central Government and others to secure that provision. We see a clear role for local government as the representatives of local communities, responsive to their needs and—this is the vital point—best able to assess in many instances their requirements. It is being close to

the grass roots, to those for whom the service is being provided, that is important. Local government in many cases fulfils that role and does so effectively. It is therefore frequently appropriate for local government to decide how it responds to local needs.
I know that my hon. Friend distinguishes very clearly between the centralised purchase of specific services and the provision of those services. Some of the initiatives that we have developed—I am thinking here of grant-maintained schools—show that it is not necessarily local government which is best placed. Sometimes it is possible to move even closer to the grass roots and to respond, for example, to the views of parents. In these cases, we are providing people with greater say on choice and we are involving people more directly in the way that services are run.
I have my doubts that creating councillors who are responsible for monitoring the standards of local services but who are not responsible for securing their provision and who raise only a very small amount of money locally is likely to enhance local accountability.

Mr. Boateng: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Squire: I am delighted to welcome the hon. Gentleman for the second time.

Mr. Boateng: Is not that precisely what the Government have done in housing? They have taken away from local authorities the responsibility for the direct provision of housing. given it to the Housing Corporation and housing associations and then expected local authorities to provide for the homeless and to have an overall monitoring role. Given the hon. Gentleman's rational analysis. is it any surprise that that simply is not working?

Mr. Squire: The House will have difficulty recognising reality in what the hon. Gentleman says. My memory is that, in the current year, local authorities are still spending up to £3 billion, which is a significant sum by any standard. Many of those authorities are spending it wisely to improve their existing stock. If they are also bringing into use many of the empty properties that, sadly, too many local authorities still have, they will be doing a double service to their local charge payers.
It seems to me that the principle of local accountability must rest on the decisions of local councillors—rather than central Government—who are responsible for services which their communities use and who raise a reasonable amount of money locally to contribute towards those services. I suspect that, if local taxation were to be marginalised to the extent that my hon. Friend suggests, the importance of local government would be correspondingly reduced and there would certainly be problems with accountability if they had only limited influence over service issues.
It seems to us that the key to securing better value for money in the provision of local services does indeed lie with the purchaser-provider split. We believe that the closer the purchaser is to those for whom the service is being provided. the more responsive and effective will he that service. It is for this reason that we believe that local authorities will continue to have a major role as a facilitator and hence purchaser of services for local people.
The purchaser-provider split in local government is a major force in securing value for money on behalf of


councils' residents. It ensures that councils are accountable not only for the choices which they make between competing priorities but for the efficient delivery of high-quality services to meet those needs.
Local government has historically been at the forefront of delivering services, often of a high quality, to the general public. The challenge facing local authorities is to identify local requirements, establish priorities, determine the appropriate levels of service which charge payers need and demand and ensure that those levels of service are consistently achieved. Those tasks are the very heart of what a local authority should be achieving for local people. An authority is not simply a bureaucracy which imposes restrictions on their aspirations; it is the means by which local communities can secure a better quality of public service and a better quality of life.
Compulsory competitive tendering has not just been a financial success but has made local authorities consider carefully, perhaps for the first time, what levels of service are required and how to measure outputs to ensure that those services are properly provided. That has given local authorities the ability to decide what standard of service they should seek. They have found that there is often room for quality to improve without a corresponding increase in costs. It is generally recognised that CCT has encouraged greater efficiency. Far from declininig, standards of service in the activities subject to CCT have, in fact, generally been maintained or improved. Authorities have taken advantage of the need to sit down and think through the needs of their communities and to demand higher standards. CCT has made a direct contribution to an improved quality of public service and we look to seeing it continue to do so in services currently subject to competition.
I think that most people accept that CCT for manual services has been successful in terms of the benefits which it has delivered both to local authorities and to their charge payers. However, now is not the time for authorities to sit back contented, or perhaps even to breathe a sigh of relief. There are other local authority activities that could benefit equally from the improved levels of service, greater efficiency and better value for money which can be realised through competition.
Many authorities have already recognised that and have gone beyond the requirements of legislation to try novel approaches to the delivery of a much greater range of services—[Laughter.] A number have organised service departments into separate business units that now act as contractors, working to the specification of the client core of the authority. Others have market-tested or contracted out a range of professional and executive services, and all have found that they have shown financial benefits or benefits in the quality of service delivered, sometimes both.
I note that some of my comments in the past few minutes have apparently aroused amusement in the hon. Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng).

Mr. John Home Robertson: And among the Back Benchers.

Mr. Squire: And among the massed Back Benchers.
As recently as yesterday, I met and spent a long time with representatives of a county council who convinced me of the many significant steps that they were already taking, in advance of any legal requirements, to make themselves more efficient and effective. I congratulate them on that, as

I do all authorities that are taking such steps. I do not regard that as humorous; I regard it as in everybody's wider interests.

Mr. Boateng: It is because a number of Opposition Members present—

Mr. Squire: Two.

Mr. Boateng: I repeat: it is because a number of Opposition Members present—

Mr. Home Robertson: One.

Mr. Boateng: It is because one of us has a certain fondness for the Minister, remembering him in his role as the representative—sometimes the lone representative—of sanity among the Conservative ranks against the then Government, and as a distinguished member of the Select Committee on the Environment, that I laugh now to hear him become so very much the perfect ministerial man. He repeats a brief—

Mr. Home Robertson: Parroting.

Mr. Boateng: As my hon. Friend says, the Minister parrots a brief that bears no resemblance to what he must know is the case on the ground—the tragedy of what local government has become.

Mr. Squire: My only response is to regret that the hon. Gentleman—who indeed spent many happy hours in my company on the Select Committee on the Environment—has lost contact with what is happening in local authorities since he turned his attention to Treasury matters.

Mr. Greg Knight: The hon. Gentleman has become an embittered man.

Mr. Squire: As my hon. Friend suggests, the hon. Gentleman may have become an embittered man. It is very sad.
The Government have made clear their commitment to the principle of extending competition in the provision of local authorities. The proposals contain plans to extend CCT to the construction-related professions such as architectural, engineering and property management services. We recognise that those services differ in character from the blue-collar services that are already subject to competition. The evaluation of tenders, for example, is not simply a matter of price. Authorities may also need to evaluate the quality of tenders, in itself sometimes a subjective judgment.
The areas to which we have proposed to extend CCT are different from those activities that have thus far been subject to the regime, and the consultation paper recognises that there may be a need to modify legislation in some cases. I cannot pretend that there has been a positive rush of support from all sides of local government for our proposals. Perhaps many of the objections stem from a misunderstanding of what we propose. It is clearly not sensible simply to apply the existing CCT regime to professional services which are themselves different in character from services such as refuse collection or street cleaning.
The question that we need to ask is not whether competition is appropriate for these services but how best it can be achieved, and how best to balance the flexibility that authorities rightly seek against the need to ensure that


the benefits of competition can be brought to authorities unwilling to look properly at alternative forms of service delivery.
Both central and local government have as their raison d'être the provision of high-quality services to the general public. The citizens charter will play an important part in promoting high standards. Local authorities are already responding to the challenge. Competition has also proved an effective tool in improving public services and has benefited not only local taxpayers but authorities themselves.
We have successfully moved away from the idea that in order to improve services, it is necessary to spend more. I think that there is also broad acceptance of the need to spend only what the country can afford. I hope that this will mean that our capping powers become more a symbol of our determination not to let up on the need for sensible and affordable budgets, rather than being a tool which we frequently use to curb the excesses of individual authorities. I hope that all this will mean that we can concentrate on the real job of local government, which is to facilitate the provision of services to their local communities, which are high in quality and low in cost, and to he accountable to them for the results.

Orders of the Day — Nuclear Waste Store (Torness and Hunterston)

Mr. John Home Robertson: I seem to recall, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that you and I were elected to the House at by-elections on the same day in October 1978. I wish that I could congratulate you at a time other than 5.36 on a Friday morning on your elevation to the Chair, but I do so anyway.
I am grateful for this opportunity to debate the proposal by Scottish Nuclear Ltd. to store 1,200 tonnes of highly radioactive waste nuclear fuel for at least 80 years in a building at Torness in East Lothian and a slightly smaller quantity at Hunterston in Ayrshire. My hon. Friend the Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson), whose constituency includes Hunterston, cannot be present for the debate, although he has an obvious interest in the subject and had an article on it published in the Glasgow Herald earlier this week.
There has been remarkably little public debate on the proposal. Therefore, I am anxious to ensure that all aspects of the idea should be fully understood. That is why I have asked the Secretary of State for Scotland to order a public inquiry in the Dunbar area to consider the whole subject before any decision is taken on the construction of a dry store for nuclear fuel.
I stress that my comments about the lack of public debate are no criticism of Scottish Nuclear, which from the start has been commendably open about its ideas and plans. That is a welcome contrast to the regime of secrecy which has tended to surround all aspects of nuclear energy policy in the past. Scottish Nuclear originally gave me a full briefing at Torness power station on 12 April 1991, and last month it went to the length of taking me and my hon. Friends the Members for Cunninghame, North and for East Kilbride (Mr. Ingram) all the way to Denver in Colorado to see a dry store for nuclear fuel which is almost identical to the facilities that it plans for Scotland.
I put a parliamentary question to the Secretary of State for Scotland on 18 April 1991 asking for a statement on Government policy. I raised the subject in a debate on 25 April last and I wrote to the Secretary of State for Scotland on 27 May 1991 expressing various concerns. On 17 February this year, I tabled a further question calling for an inquiry, and most recently. on 6 May, I wrote again to the Secretary of State for Scotland underlining my view that an inquiry should be held before any decision is made about the construction of a dry store at Torness.
However, the Scottish Office seems to keep hedging. A reply from the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, the hon. Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart) on 3 June merely confirmed:
a Public Local Inquiry may indeed be the best way of considering unresolved representations.
Incidentally, I am sorry that the hon. Member for Eastwood, who is responsible for these affairs, is not here to face the music, and I am especially sorry that it is my old friend, the other Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, the hon. Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro), who has had to spend part of the night waiting to reply to this debate.
To return to the issue of unresolved representations, I understand that there have been very few representations, although East Lothian district council and the East


Lammermuir community council, which covers Torness, have joined me in expressing reservations and in calling for a public inquiry.
It is amazing that a proposal to erect repositories for high-level waste nuclear fuel, close to populated areas in central Scotland, has not generated more attention. I say that particularly in view of the fuss some years ago about the proposal for a repository for low-level waste in Essex and the outcry against plans for underground repositories for intermediate-level waste at various sites at present. I cannot understand why a permanently shielded and absolutely secure underground store should be so controversial if the storage of high-level waste fuel in a simple concrete building at Torness can progress without any opposition from the organisations which usually have so much to say about the possible hazard of nuclear physics.
It seems that debate has been somewhat restricted because of a very unusual coincidence between the financial interests of Scottish Nuclear and one of the campaigning objectives of organisations such as Friends of the Earth and Greenpeace: Scottish Nuclear properly wants to save money by avoiding the costs of having fuel reprocessed and stored at Sellafield, and the anti-nuclear lobby wants to undermine the future of Sellafield by depriving it of its work.
That is all very well, but the lack of the usual chorus of objections might lead to a decision being taken before my constituents in East Lothian have a proper opportunity to consider the possible consequences for their neighbour-hood and their descendants in the next century and beyond. That is why I am taking this opportunity to make a further plea for a public inquiry, and I hope that the Minister will be able to say something positive about that.
I stress again that I have no complaints about Scottish Nuclear. It has a duty to make decisions on a commercial basis, and that is what it is doing. I also fully accept the important role of nuclear power generation at present and in the foreseeable future. Most of Scotland's electricity is generated at Torness and Hunterston, and the nuclear industry is an important element of the economy not only in my constituency but in North Ayrshire, Caithness and, indeed, in the Minister's constituency of Dumfries. The nuclear industry in Scotland has a good record and I welcome the fact that it is still in public ownership. That should impose a duty on the Government to face long-term decisions about the storage of waste fuel and other radioactive residues. The industry requires decisions for the permanent storage of its radioactive residues, and my main concern about the current proposals is that they are another stop-gap effort to postpone costly decisions which the Government should face.
1 have already said that I have seen the modular vault dry store—MVDS for short—which has been constructed, and loaded, to the design of GEC Alsthom at Fort St. Vrain in Colorado. It is an admirably simple design. The fuel elements are contained in steel tubes, which are retained vertically in a concrete structure. There is a natural air flow from an inlet at the base of the store, past all the tubes and out through a chimney at the top, which keeps the stored fuel cool. It is a bit like an old-fashioned farmyard corn stack.
The principle is admirably simple and it is difficult to believe that much could go wrong. In theory, nothing should go wrong although there was serious trouble at the only similar facility in the United Kingdom at Wylfa in

Anglesey in 1991 when water got through a flat roof—surprise, surprise! it has been known to happen in other buildings—and corroded the magnesium containers. A report in the New Scientist of 2 March 1981 states:
Rotting fuel rods in the world's largest dry store for spent radioactive fuel in North Wales could cause a catastrophic fire. The magnesium 'can' which surrounds the rods has corroded so badly that the radioactive metal is exposed.
If water penetrates the cladding of the element it can react with the metallic uranium fuel. One of the corrosion products is uranium hydride, which can ignite spontaniously in air. If enough uranium hydride burns, it can ignite the metallic uranium and release the highly radioactive fission products "held" in the uranium bar. This would constitute a major nuclear accident.
Happily, none of those things came to pass. I understand that the problem has been dealt with at Wylfa. I am glad to say that the buildings that are proposed for Torness and Hunterston have pitched roofs. Nevertheless, the incident shows that things can go wrong.
Other possible snags include corrosion from inside the tubes caused by water picked up by the fuel elements while they are being cooled in ponds before storage, or physical damage to fuel if a tube is accidentally dropped during handling.
The fundamental issues that must be addressed are, first, whether it is right to be proliferating stores containing highly radioactive fuel elements at power stations around the country and, secondly, how long will the fuel remain in these temporary stores? Thirdly, where will it be taken for permanent storage and/or reprocessing? Given our habit of fudging difficult questions about radioactive waste, there must be genuine concern that the fuel might remain for literally centuries in stores that are supposed to have a design life of about 80 years.
I mention in passing that we have at least five nuclear submarine hulks gathering barnacles in the water at Rosyth and Devonport docks because nobody wants to decide what to do with them. I fear that temporary dry stores might have to linger on indefinitely if we continue to avoid long-term decisions.
As for proliferation, I know that Windscale and Sellafield have had problems over the years, and I am familiar with the public anxiety about the transportation of nuclear waste to Sellafield. I have to say that the transport flasks that are now in use are virtually, bomb-proof. Certainly they are spectacular when compared with the light vehicles that I saw being used during my visit to the United States. As for Sellafield, there appears to be evidence that British Nuclear Fuels plc has developed a high level of efficiency and safety at its thermal oxide reprocessing plant. Its expertise in storing radioactive material must be second to none after all the experience that it has gathered.
The nation has invested heavily at Sellafield and it seems rather perverse not to use the facility to the full now that we have it. Given the complex and hazardous nature of radioactive material, it would seem more prudent to operate the single centre of excellence, where there is all the necessary expertise and equipment to manage such material, rather than distribute the material throughout the country to on-site stores at power stations at different locations.
That point is connected with my next concern, which is the day-to-day supervision, security and management of a dry store. I accept that it is straightforward for the normal staff at a power station such as Torness to look after a dry store, but it must be said that the 1,200 tonnes of waste fuel


would remain in store for at least 50 years after the power station had been closed and the reactors had been deCommissioned.
The life of the Torness power station will come to an end in about the year 2030, but the fuel would remain in the temporary dry store until it stopped generating heat, which would be about the year 2080. By that time, I shall be dead. If my children are lucky, they might be centenarians, and their grandchildren will have to worry about the nuclear legacy that we may be leaving at Torness power station. I think that it is worth putting that chronology on the record.
It is one thing for a dry store to be supervised by nuclear technicians at a working power station, but 50 years later it would probably be left to occasional visits by a contract security man and his dog. Vegetation might choke the air inlet. If I know seagulls, they would probably invade the air outlet. Concrete and other parts of the structure might begin to decay. Goodness knows what mischief might be wrought by 21st century vandalism, accidents or neglect of a building whose significance may be largely forgotten with the passing of time.
That is not the end of the story. In theory, the contents are supposed to be shifted for reprocessing or permanent storage after those 50 years. That means handling the material in cylinders that might not all be in perfect condition 80 years on, shifting them to Sellafield or a similar facility for reprocessing and storing what is left in an underground repository for spent fuel, about which Nirex has not yet even started thinking.
Sooner or later, we will have to face the need for long-term decisions to deal with the long-term problem of nuclear waste. We cannot continue stacking the stuff in temporary stores for ever, whether it is submarine propulsion reactors in the water at Rosyth and Devonport or all the stuff at Sellafield or Drigg or, indeed, the proposed short-term, on-site stores such as Torness and Hunterston. Temporary storage is no substitute for permanent storage. There must be doubts about the economics of investing in such short-term measures. It is a little like investing in a temporary shed for one's house to store the rubbish, instead of getting a contractor to take it away in a skip.
The radioactive residues of the nuclear industry will not disappear if we bury our heads in the sand. As this generation is getting the economic advantage of today's nuclear industry, surely this generation should face up to the difficult and costly decisions about safe storage of nuclear waste, instead of leaving a load of trouble for our great grandchildren to worry about at the end of the 21st century. That probably means a permanent underground store in a geologically suitable location, which will have to be monitored and managed for all time.
I do not underestimate the political problems of finding such a site, but it will have to be done sooner or later, and it is perhaps time that we stopped running away from that decision. That brings me back to the proposal to spend £40 million on a temporary store at Torness, which might have to outlast its design life if we keep avoiding decisions about permanent storage.
From what I saw at Fort St. Vrain in Colorado, and from what I have heard and read about the design of the MVDS, I would not necessarily object to the principle of

such a temporary store at Torness, provided that it genuinely will be emptied at the end of its planned life—in other words, a maximum of 50 years after the closure of the power station.
I raised that very point during my visit to the dry store at Fort St. Vrain last week. The radioactive waste programme's director, who manages the facility on behalf of the Public Service Company of Colorado—Mr. Steven Sherrow—specifically told me:
The dry store is a short-term solution to a long-term problem.
The trouble is that it will be difficult to believe any undertaking that the store at Torness will be cleared within that 50-year time scale, in the absence of any progress towards planning and constructing a permanent storage facility in the United Kingdom for nuclear fuel and high-level waste.
The Secretary of State for Scotland has certain statutory duties, and one is to establish that any new process involving radioactive material uses the "best available technique" under section 7 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990. In other words, he must positively establish to have temporary local stores such as that proposed by Scottish Nuclear for Torness and Hunterston, or to continue with the current plans to transfer the material to Sellafield and processing and storing it there.
The Secretary of State also has a duty to recognise that the proposals are a major departure from the planning consent originally granted after public inquiries into the proposals to build the reactors and generating stations at Torness and Hunterston. Those plans and the relevant consents clearly stipulated that high-level waste fuel was to be removed from the site for reprocessing and storage on another site. We are talking about major changes from current plans and consents and that underlines the case for a further proper public planning inquiry before the matter is concluded.
I have sought to approach the question fairly and constructively, and I do not want to indulge in any nuclear scaremongering, not least because I have the highest respect for the skill and diligence of Scottish Nuclear's staff and management at Hunterston and Torness. But I am concerned that there has not been a proper public debate about the proliferation of stores containing nuclear fuel and the implications of further temporary decisions about material which requires permanent solutions.
I am grateful for this opportunity to put those points on record in the House of Commons and I hope—I say this once again—that the Minister will now be able to agree that there should be an inquiry into all aspects of the proposals before the Secretary of State makes his decision.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Sir Hector Monro): I am grateful to the hon. Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) for initiating this important debate. He has great expertise in nuclear matters and has been assiduous in representing his constituents with regard to Torness. As he mentioned, we have an affinity in that I probably live as near as any Member of Parliament to a nuclear power station, Chapelcross. His comment that there has been little high-profile debate about the nuclear dry store was interesting because when the Central Electricity Generating Board considered Chapelcross as a possibility


for a similar type of store a few years ago there was a good local debate but, because at the end of the day the board did not put in a formal application, the possibility of an inquiry did not arise.
So often in nuclear debates the word "waste" is used when it is spent fuel that is being discussed, which is a somewhat different matter because if it is taken hack to Sellafield it can be reprocessed, as the hon. Gentleman well understands. However, I accept the hon. Gentleman's point, as I do the high standards that Scottish Nuclear has achieved and the way in which it has been open and frank on all issues. Obviously, it keeps its Member of Parliament well informed about what is going on. Scottish Nuclear is one of the most important Scottish companies and Torness is one of the two advanced gas reactors operated by SNL, which is a major employer in the hon. Gentleman's constituency and elsewhere.
The hon. Gentleman, like all of us, is interested in the safe operation of reactors, which provide up to 50 per cent. of Scotland's electricity needs. It is a matter of pride for the company that it has set and achieved such an excellent safety record. But the debate is really about the proposed building of a dry store. I do not need to tell the hon. Gentleman what is proposed because he has obviously had detailed discussions with SNL. He most interestingly told us about his visits to Fort St. Vrain in Colorado, where he saw a dry store which had been completed and was in operation. He is probably as well informed about the issue as any Member of Parliament.
In essence, SNL has been looking at the whole range of its fuel handling and other services. As part of the process, it has been considering options, very much with safety in mind, for controlling costs. As a result, it has concluded, as other nuclear operators in other countries have, that dry storage of spent fuel for a number of years would he an appropriate immediate method of handling such material.
The proposal would involve keeping irradiated fuel in vertical storage tubes within a concrete structure. The vault storage would provide the necessary radiation shielding for the stored fuel, with integrated air flow ducts for the removal of heat from the vaults. I liked the hon. Gentleman's observation that it was similar to a haystack. I hope that it keeps cooler than most of mine, which sometimes look rather lopsided after a day's heating.
The drawing in of cold air would provide a continuous self-regulating cooling system. There would be safety features to contain any escape of radioactive material. The whole plan would be subject to approval by the nuclear installations inspectorate of the Health and Safety Executive.
I cannot say more about the proposals. As the hon. Gentleman knows. Scottish Nuclear has applied to the Secretary of State for Scotland for consent under the Electricity Act 1989 to construct such a spent fuel storage facility, or dry store. The company's present application is for a dry store at Torness only. I understand that Scottish Nuclear has it in mind to proceed down the same route at Hunterston, but it has not yet developed its proposals in that regard.
The company's proposals raise a number of issues. The application has been accompanied by public advertise-ment, and the preparation of an environmental assessment which addresses the issues. As a result of that wide consultation exercise, a number of representations have been received by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. As the hon. Gentleman said, local councils and

individuals have written letters, and I know that he has done so as well. The representations will be considered as required by the procedures laid down in the Electricity Act.
I fully understand the hon. Gentleman's anxiety that relevant issues should be thoroughly examined, and a public local inquiry may well be the best way of doing that. Indeed, everything that the hon. Gentleman has said suggests that it would be the right course. My right hon. Friend is now examining the matter very closely. It is only a matter of weeks since the formal application was presented to him, but I hope that he will be able to reach a conclusion very soon. As the hon. Gentleman said, wide debate is necessary on such an important issue. It would set a precedent in Scotland, and I think that the more discussion that takes place, the better.
Meanwhile, as the hon. Gentleman will appreciate, it would not be appropriate for me to comment in any way on Scottish Nuclear's proposals. This is a quasi-judicial decision for the Secretary of State for Scotland, and I must not prejudice the consideration that he must give to the proposals—and to representations from the hon. Gentleman's constituents.

Mr. Home Robertson: The Minister referred to his right hon. Friend's duty to make a decision in terms of the Electricity Act. Will he confirm that his right hon. Friend also has a duty to consider the matter in terms of the Environmental Protection Act 1990?

Sir Hector Monro: I can give that assurance and I hope that there will he the widest possible opportunity for consideration and discussion of all the issues. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman appreciates my difficulty in going further. but it is very likely that we shall proceed by means of the public inquiry system.
I emphasise the high regard that I share with the hon. Gentleman for the safety factors in the nuclear industry in Scotland—and, indeed, throughout the United Kingdom. We can move forward with confidence, but always in the certain knowledge that safety is the prime consideration.
I was interested to hear the hon. Gentleman talk in terms of the future, because we know that with Chapelcross, for example, the design life has long since passed. Yet it can still satisfy the most stringent safety requirements, because of the high standards of mainte-nance and the continued development throughout the life of the plant. I am sure that will be SNL's view and that that is what it will put into practice.

Mr. Home Robertson: I do not want to be difficult; I take the Minister's point about the quality of the work at Chapelcross, Torness and all the other locations, but does he accept that there is a distinction between an operating reactor at a power station or at the Chapelcross facility, where a full range of specialist nuclear staff are on the spot to keep an eye on it, and a "ghost" situation—a building with fuel simply in store, being supervised by security men from time to time? As the decades pass, it is quite possible that there could be difficulties.

Sir Hector Monro: That question will be discussed in depth if there is a public inquiry, which seems a likely conclusion following my remarks. If I said any more than that, however, I should be doing what I said that I must not do and prejudicing the Secretary of State's decision on the inquiry and what may come out of it.
Nevertheless, I am glad that we have had the chance to discuss the matter. It has now been highlighted, and I hope that there will be a decision from my right hon. Friend on the inquiry in the not-too-distant future.

Orders of the Day — Pornography

Mr. Michael Stephen: I am grateful for the opportunity to address the House on the subject of action against pornography. Pornography is a subject of great concern to my constituents, who often raise it when they write to me and when I meet them.
I am disappointed to see that no Liberal Democrat Member of Parliament has seen fit to attend this important debate.
Before I talk about the action against pornography which I propose, let me first put the matter in context. Some people think that the 1960s were a golden age, but I believe that they were a decade when our country embarked upon a moral decline which has not yet ended. The time has come to reverse that decline and to rediscover the Christian values upon which our society should be based.
In the 1960s, we saw the breakdown of respect between men and women and between parents and children; there was a breakdown of respect for the aged and a general breakdown of respect for our fellow citizens and for their persons and property. Since then there has been an unacceptable rise in crime of all kinds, and a horrifying increase in teenage pregnancies, to which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health referred in her excellent document, "Health of the Nation" published yesterday.
Child abuse causes us all great concern nowadays, the number of births outside marriage has soared from 51,000 in 1961 to 235,000 in 1991, and the number of divorces rose from 27,000 in 1961 to 167,000 in 1990. Also some people now believe homosexual behaviour to be just as normal as heterosexual behaviour.
What has been the cause of all this? There are many causes, but two are especially significant. One is the permissive ideas which got into the education system in the 1960s, and the other is the increasing availability, and the increasingly disgusting character, of pornography.
Permissive ideas still exist in the education system—in schools, in local education authorities and in training colleges, but I am optimistic that the Government's reforms are beginning to put things right. But what of pornography? It is no accident that in the 1960s television became widely available in homes throughout the land. Those who remember television in those days, as I do, cannot fail to have noticed the steady and insidious increase in pornography and violence which has been fed into the living rooms of our nation over the past 30 years.
Television producers argue that they merely reflect public attitudes. I say that television is the most powerful medium ever invented for changing attitudes and moulding ideas. Anyone who doubts that should consider the thousands of pounds that companies are willing to pay for a few seconds of television advertising.
I well remember the "Lady Chatterley's Lover" trial in the 1960s. It concerned a book, but that case had an influence on television, films, newspapers, magazines and, more recently videotapes. I recall the legal arguments about that book's artistic merits, and the venerable witnesses called by the defence. However. I have no doubt that that case gave the green light to the pornographers. It showed them that there were vast profits to be made from


peddling their wares in the United Kingdom. In this country today. pornography is a multi-million pound industry.
I am as much in favour of commercial enterprise as anyone on these Benches, and I believe that the freedom of the individual is the essential foundation of our society. There is, however, a difference between freedom and licence. In any civilised society, it is necessary to balance the freedom of the individual against the public good—so we were right to ban publications calculated to incite racial hatred.
It is often argued that pornography should be allowed unless it can be shown that it causes deviant behaviour. That is the difficulty with the "deprave and corrupt" test found in section 1 of the Obscene Publications Act 1959. In 1990, the Home Office Commissioned Messrs Howitt and Cumberbatch to inquire into the connection between pornography and deviant behaviour. Their report was inconclusive. Paragraph 3 of their conclusions stated:
the recording of sexual crimes lacks the detail which would help understanding of changes over time while evidence on patterns in hard core pornography and their possible relationship to sexual offences is virtually non-existent.
Paragraph 5 stated:
There has been little attempt to categorise pornography into types which may be related to possible specific effects. We also lack any understanding of the ways in which the symbolic messages of pornography are communicated and interpreted by the reader or viewer. Research evidence in this area could be easily obtained.
I find persuasive the following passages from an article by Dr. Raymond Wyre, a specialist in the treatment of sex offenders, published in The Scotsman on 4 April 1991:
The cause and effect argument can never be conclusive. Most men have seen pornography, and most men will not afterwards go out and rape women. Pornography is not the cause of the problem, it is part of the problem … In working with sex offenders over 15 years, it is impossible not to believe that pornography plays a part in sexual violence. As we constantly confront sex offenders about their behaviour, they display a wide range of distorted views that they then use to excuse their behaviour, justify their actions, blame the victim, and minimise the effect of their offending. They seek to make their own behaviour seem normal and interpret the behaviour of the victim as consent, rather than a survival strategy. Pornography legitimises these views.
Dr. Wyre concluded:
So, in the case of pornography, I believe that there is overwhelming evidence that there is a connection between offending behaviour, sexual aggression, and sexist attitudes.
It is no mere coincidence that pornography is almost always found in the homes of rapists and serious sex offenders. Whether or not Dr. Wyre is right, I do not think that it is necessary to establish that pornography causes deviant behaviour, because I have no doubt that pornography coarsens and degrades our society and has an insidious and corrosive effect on us all.
It does not matter what time of day we buy or see that material; it affects us whether we are young or old; it does not matter whether we have to pass a notice that warns us before we go to buy the material. The question is whether, and to what extent, pornography should be banned. That is a question of balance between, on the one hand, the protection of society against degradation and corruption and, on the other, the freedom of the pornographers to make vast profits and the freedom of the individual purchaser to engage in a pursuit which, at the very least, is to be discouraged.
I do not think that those particular freedoms are worth protecting. The Government have a right and a duty to

take action not only against the worst and most revolting examples, but also against material that is euphemistically described as "soft porn". Lest it should be thought that the Government have been idle in the matter, I pay tribute to the Government for the Indecent Displays (Control) Act 1981; the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1982, which empowers local authorities to adopt a licensing system for sex shops; the Cinematograph (Amendment) Act 1982; the Video Recordings Act 1984; the Criminal Justice Act 1988; the Malicious Communications Act 1988 and the Broadcasting Act 1990.
1 also pay tribute to the work of my right hon. Friend the Member for Hove (Mr. Sainsbury), my hon. Friends the Members for Bexleyheath (Mr. Townsend), for Davyhulme (Mr. Churchill), for Bury, South (Mr. Sumberg), for Congleton (Mrs. Winterton), the hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms. Short) and to the work of Mr. Gerald Howarth and Mr. Andrew Stewart who are no longer Members of Parliament.
They know—and I share their view—that in the battle against pornography we are dealing with an industry, which I would prefer to call a racket, which is well financed, well organised and very ingenious. We cannot afford to let it win the battle. We must equip our law enforcement agencies with the legal tools and backing that they need. Above all, the House must show leadership. We must make it clear that the activities of the pornography industry will not be tolerated.
Having read the debates on the subject before this one, I must say that I am concerned by the flippant attitude to the matter displayed by some members of my sex and, indeed,, by some members of my party. Their very considerable talents, wittingly or unwittingly, have served the interests of the merchants of degradation.
If the Broadcasting Act 1990 is adequate, how is it possible that BBC2 screened a programme called "Do the Right Thing" on 28 June 1992 and Channel 4 screened a programme entitled "Bill Hicks-Relentless" on 4 May 1992? In both those programmes language was used that was so revolting that I will not read it out as I do not wish to turn Hansard into an obscene publication. I have, however, given a copy to my hon. Friend the Minister.
We must give the Broadcasting Standards Council our full support so that, in next year's annual report, we will not read what we have read in this year's report. At page 26, the Commission says that it chose one week when it monitored all television programmes and that its
analysis showed that bad language had been used in 112 programmes (40 per cent. of all programmes analysed) and on 833 occasions.
At page 29 of the report, we find that
One in ten of all the programmes analysed contained some element of sexual activity, and just under one-quarter of all scenes portrayed coital acts.
When the BBC charter and the commercial franchises come up for review, let those who are responsible for those broadcasting organisations be in no doubt that their conduct between now and then will be watched very carefully by hon. Members on both sides of the House.
If the Video Recordings Act 1984 is adequate, how is it possible that the British Board of Film Classification has given a certificate to a video called "Gay Man's Guide to Safer Sex"? It purports to be an educational video, but in reality it is as lewd and disgusting a publication as one would ever be likely to see. If the Obscene Publications Act 1959 is adequate, how is it possible to pick up a family newspaper almost every day of the week and see in it


written and visual material which one would have had to go to the top shelf of a seedy newsagent's to find 10 years ago? If the Obscene Publications Act 1959 is effective, how is it possible to print and distribute a book so disgusting that no fewer than 87 hon. Members have signed early-day motion 312 about it? I will not name the book or its publisher because I do not wish to advertise it, but I shall read the rest of the early-day motion. It states:
this House deplores the publication
of that book, and—
notes with deep concern that this book both glorifies and positively advocates the torture, rape and murder of babies, children and adult women and men including the inmates of prisons and patients in mental hospitals; regrets that the Director of Public Prosecutions decided that there is insufficient evidence to prosecute the publishers of this book under the terms of the Obscene Publications Act 1959; and calls upon Her Majesty's Government urgently to review the laws on obscenity and pornography to ensure that the desire of this House to encourage freedom of speech is balanced by the responsibility which it has to protect children, women and men from degradation and violence.
We need to introduce a new definition of obscenity, and look again at Gerald Howarth's 1987 Bill. I would be quite willing to introduce a new Bill, but that should not be a matter for private Members. This is an important matter for the moral health of the nation. The 1982 legislation to control sex shops was a Government Bill, and the Government should bring forward further legislation. In the meantime, I urge the Government to use section 3 of the 1959—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): Order. The hon. Gentleman is straying now, referring to future legislation. This is not the time to discuss that. I am advised by the Clerk that incidental reference is allowed, but the hon. Gentleman must not stray too far.

Mr. Stephen: I am grateful for your guidance, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
In the meantime, I urge the Government to use section 3 of the Obscene Publications Act 1959, which enables a constable to apply to a magistrate for a warrant to search premises and seize material which he has reasonable grounds to believe to be contrary to that Act. He must bring that material before a magistrate, and the magistrate can then decide whether it is contrary to the Act, and, if so satisfied, order that it be forfeited.
In that way, one will avoid two problems which one encounters using section 2 of the Act to prosecute a person. First, the question whether the material is or is not obscene has to be decided according to the civil standard —on the balance of probabilities—not the criminal standard—beyond reasonable doubt. Secondly, juries are not involved. These two factors of the difficulty of proving to the criminal standard and of satisfying juries make prosecutions under the 1959 Act so difficult.
I tabled a parliamentary question to my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General about the matter. He said that he did not think it appropriate to use section 3 of the Act against the book to which early-day motion 312 refers. I cannot understand that. Taking essentially civil proceedings to confiscate pornographic literature is a different matter from taking criminal proceedings to impose criminal penalties on a person or company.
The difficulty with seizing pornographic material under section 3 is logistic. The police would have to bring in

many tonnes of the material. I suggest that private contractors could be used, as they are used for wheel clamping and the management of prisons. We need a company which knows the printing, publishing and distribution industry, will know where to go to find the material and could bring the material before magistrates and secure orders for confiscation. The intervention of the constable would be necessary only for the execution of the warrant.
If the material is found to be pornographic, the court should order the pornographer to pay the costs of the private contractor in confiscating the material. There should also be no question of the pornographer being able to claim tax relief in respect of the expenditure that he incurred to print, store or do anything else with the pornographic material.
I will not go into the European dimension, except to say that pornography is so readily available in Germany, Holland and other parts of the continent that it is vital to do what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said in the House a short while ago he intended do and make sure that our own border controls are maintained.
I am grateful to the House for listening to me. I should like to conclude with two short quotations. The first is from The Guardian of 8 May 1990, from a man who was introduced to pornography in the 1960s and has since become a reformed character:
Some three years on from my decision, I cannot deny that I am still sometimes attracted to pornography. But mostly, I now feel that it is not only unappealing to me but also degrading and dangerous to women. I no longer feel shame or guilt about having used it, although I do feel sad and angry at how it has affected me.
The second quotation is from the sermon which the Archbishop of Canterbury delivered to us all at St. Margaret's church on the occasion of the opening of this, my first Parliament. He said:
I ask for recognition that the sense of shared values, so vital to long-term wellbeing, derives from our Christian heritage; I ask that we should not be ashamed to declare our loyalty to Christ in this nation. If we do so, I believe that we will acknowledge that human life, and hence the ordering of society through Parliamentary Law, has a religious and spiritual dimension which is a source of hope.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Michael Jack): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Shoreham (Mr. Stephen) on securing this important debate and on the clear and powerful way in which he put his case on a subject which matters a great deal to him and to many millions of people. He expressed his views with considerable clarity and I listened to him carefully. His remarks were made in the context of a view of the state of the nation's morals and of some of the influences that have affected them, especially in the 1960s. I noted a powerful plea about television in his introductory remarks. I agree that television is a powerful medium of communication, with considerable ability to influence people.
I also noted my hon. Friend's argument about advertising. He was generous to the Government about what they have done and I hope that he will take some comfort from the fact that the Government have set up the Broadcasting Standards Council and enabled, for the first time, an independent voice to have its say on standards in television.
I want to put on the record the Government's comprehensive view of pornography because, in consider-ing parts of the law, there is a danger that we may Miss the whole picture of control. I also believe in the power of people and of public opinion. I hope that those who read my hon. Friend's words and this debate will take comfort from the fact that there is now an outlet for their views, as the Broadcasting Standards Council can listen to them.
I thank my hon. Friend for his courtesy in giving me a copy of the script of the television programmes which so troubled him and, I am sure, many millions of viewers. That is precisely the sort of subject on which the council should receive letters—and other forms of appropriate representation—if people feel that it is not reacting.
It may be useful for me to list the subjects that I intend to cover. They will include the book that my hon. Friend mentioned, and I shall try to deal with the decisions not to prosecute its publishers. I shall consider the legal controls on obscenity and the implications of the single market for our controls. My hon. Friend mentioned Europe, and it is worth talking for a few moments on that subject. I shall also mention the ways in which he suggested that we might amend the Obscene Publications Act 1959, and deal with the Government's attitude to legislation and reform of the law. I hope that he will not find my remarks unsympathetic. Not unnaturally, I shall also reflect on that which has gone before.
One difficulty in discussing pornography is that it is sometimes difficult to decide what is meant by the term. In legal terms, the word has no significance, but for an individual it can encompass anything, from pictures of scantily dressed women, which appear in certain newspapers and which some people may dismiss as merely risible or titallating, to unspeakably vile child porno-graphy, which amounts to a real sexual abuse of children. My hon. Friend referred to that, and I understand his point about the way in which some of that material is handled by newspapers. He was right to draw attention to that.
The Government's task, and indeed the task of the House, is to ensure that the law is strong enough to catch the worst material, while safeguarding the rights of citizens to see, read, write and do what they wish, without an oppressive level of state censorship or intervention.
Where precisely the boundary should be drawn between material which is caught by the law and material which is not is still a difficult question, and one which can never be resolved to every body's satisfaction. However, it is clear that many hon. Members believe that the law is balanced too much in favour of the pornographer and not enough in favour of the ordinary, decent citizen. On balance, the Government agree with that view and believe that the law could with advantage be tightened. That is why, when there have been clear cases of gaps in the law on videos, indecent displays, broadcasting and child pornography, the Government have been only too willing to introduce or actively support legislation to plug those gaps. However, it is more difficult fundamentally to change the whole basis on which the law operates, and I hope to consider that aspect in greater detail later in my speech.
I hope that my hon. Friend will forgive me if I mention the title of the book in question. I do not want to advertise it any more than he does, but it was the subject of an Adjournment debate and, for the sake of clarity, I must

mention it. The book, as my hon. Friend knows, is called "Juliette" and that earlier debate revealed hon. Members' passion and feeling about it.
I asked to see a copy of the book and was revolted by the language which it contained. I can tell my hon. Friend unequivocally that I would not have used my money to buy it. I can appreciate the sensitivities that it shocks. Anyone who thought that it was an easy, titillating read is in for a rude and nasty shock. It is a disgusting publication.
My hon. Friend referred to the actions of the Director of Public Prosecutions in relation to the book. As I said last week in the Adjournment debate, last December it was decided not to prosecute the publishers on the ground that there was insufficient evidence to provide a realistic prospect of conviction. I appreciate hon. Members' concern at that decision. As my hon. Friend probably gathers from my description of the book, I share some of their views.
However, it would be quite wrong for me or for any Minister to attempt to persuade the DPP to prosecute in a case where she did not believe that she would be justified in doing so. It is right that the DPP should not seek to prosecute in cases where, after detailed consideration, she concluded that there was insufficient evidence for a conviction. Nevertheless, as I promised last week, I have reported the concerns of hon. Members to my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General and I know that he has taken careful note of what was said in that debate.
My hon. Friend said that the book highlighted a weakness in our law, because the Obscene Publications Act 1959 was unable to catch it. He deduced that that Act must be inadequate. As I have said before, I have some sympathy with that view. But it is not easy to go on to say that X is the cause of the weakness and Y is the solution. A decision whether to prosecute in a particular case can be based on one of a number of considerations touching on the likely chances of success.
In the case of a possible prosecution of a book under the 1959 Act, it must first be decided what the likely readership of the book is—will it, for example, fall into the hands of children? Then there must be an assessment of whether the book has a tendency to deprave and corrupt that likely readership. The chances of a successful public-good defence must also be evaluated. Only if the DPP believes, after weighing up those different factors, that there is a realistic prospect of conviction, taking account of any possible defence or any other relevant factors, can she properly decide to prosecute. That is, of course, the criterion that she applies to all offences.
Whatever change might be made in the law, no one can guarantee that a particular publication would be caught by it and there would inevitably be some who would be disappointed that the law was not as effective as they had expected. Even if the DPP thought that a case was suitable for prosecution, in the end everything would still depend on the decision of the particular jury which heard the case.
I believe that, last week, my hon. Friend raised the possibility of the book being available in prisons. Concern was expressed about the possibility of that publication circulating freely in prisons, perhaps even among sex offenders. I understand that it would be contrary to our international human rights obligations to enforce an arbitrary ban on the circulation within prison of material which was legally available outside. However, a prison governor has a discretion under Home Office standing order No. 4(b)(23) to withdraw or withhold any book if he


considers that its contents could present a threat to good order and discipline in the prison, or is likely to have an adverse effect on an inmate from a medical point of view. It is for individual prison governors to decide whether "Juliette" comes within the terms of the standing order.
My hon. Friend rightly spoke of seizure of materials. He and others have asked why some action cannot be taken to seize "Juliette" under the provisions of section 3 of the Obscene Publications Act. My hon. Friend tabled a question on this, to which he referred. Forfeiture proceedings would not be appropriate because, after the book was seized, the magistrates would have to address precisely the same issues as to whether the work had a tendency to deprave and corrupt which a court would consider on a prosecution and about which the DPP had already come to a view.

Mr. Stephen: The point I was making was that the magistrates would determine the matter according to a different standard of proof. If they were not being asked to convict somebody of a criminal offence, the standard of proof applicable would be the civil standard. Furthermore, no jury would be involved.

Mr. Jack: I note what my hon. Friend says, and I shall give a little more detail about success in seizures, which illustrates the effectiveness of that point in general terms, although I note the terms in which he questions the use of that part of the Obscene Publications Act in respect of this book. It is important that the attention of my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General is drawn not only to those remarks but to concerns about this aspect of the law.
During the Adjournment debate on this subject instigated by the hon. Member for Rochdale (Ms. Lynne), I wa anxious to allow as many hon. Members as possible to have their say. One of the problems that we faced was that we did not look at pornography in the round and at all the controls on it. If the House will bear with me, I shall try to remedy that deficiency. It is important that our discussions on pornography—my hon. Friend was kind enough to mention some of the Government's successes —should not be based solely on the Obscene Publications Act. It is one important element in a series of controls, both statutory and common law, that affect pornography.
Last week I mentioned the Post Office Act 1953 and the Children and Young Persons (Harmful Publications) Act 1955 in some detail. There are also the Indecent Displays (Control) Act 1981, which makes it an offence to display indecent matter in a public place, the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1982, which allows local authorities to control sex shops, the Theatres Act 1968, the Video Recordings Act 1984, which my hon. Friend mentioned, and the Cinemas Act 1985, which provides for licensing or regulation of these forms of entertainment and prohibits obscene performances of plays. All those Acts play their part in the legislation to deal with pornography.
Most important, in my view the law properly contains very stringent provisions to protect children against sexual exploitation. In the Criminal Justice Act 1988, which my hon. Friend also mentioned, we reinforced earlier legislation—the Protection of Children Act 1978—so that

it is now an offence to take, distribute, advertise, show or even possess any indecent film, photograph or video of a child under the age of 16.
In the Criminal Justice Act 1991, we implemented the Pigot report's recommendations and allowed children to give evidence by pre-recorded video. We plan to implement those provisions in October. More generally, the Government's commitment to the protection of children was demonstrated in the Children Act 1989, which provides that when a court is determining any question relating to the upbringing of a child, the child's welfare shall be the court's paramount consideration.
The importation of obscene material is prohibited by the Customs Consolidation Act 1876, and that prohibition is enforced under the Customs and Excise Management Act 1979. Those measures amount to the toughest controls in Europe on pornography. It is an important package in total. I want to emphasise that the Government have played a significant role in either introducing or supporting many of the Acts that I mentioned. As I have made clear, the Government are committed to maintaining those tight controls.
I understand that there has been concern about the possible effects of the European single market and the abolition of trade barriers on our control of pornography. The first thing to stress is that our internal domestic controls will remain unchanged. The suggestion that we will be obliged to accept supposedly lax continental standards in relation to pornography are simply misplaced. That matter will continue to be judged by each European Community member state for itself, and the difference in standards between the United Kingdom and, for example, the Netherlands will remain.
Customs controls will be affected by the general move towards selective, intelligence-based customs checks, rather than random checks, but the Government have no intention of relaxing their prohibitions on the trade in obscene materials. No Community measure requires them to do so. There is increasing recognition across Europe of the danger presented by the worst kind of pornographic material. The Council of Europe has considered the problem of the distribution of video works having a violent, brutal or pornographic content and has issued advice to member states. Although the European Community has not formally considered that matter, when the opportunity has arisen we have made known our view that European Community members should act against pornographers, particularly against the trade in child pornography. I hope that my hon. Friend will take some comfort from that.
I noted my hon. Friend's comments on seizure. I was interested in his remarks on private contraction, and some of the solutions that he proposed. I should like to take time to reflect on those matters and then correspond with him.
Debates such as this inevitably dwell on weaknesses in the law. But as I said last week, whatever criticisms there may be, the existing legislation is effective, especially in controlling the worst sorts of pornographic videos and magazines. In 1990, the most recent year for which figures are available, 73 people were convicted of offences under the Obscene Publications Act. In 1991, 20,000 articles were forfeited under section 3 of that Act in the Metropolitan police district alone. I do not want to distresss hon. Members who may have returned from breakfast in the Tea Room by reading out a list of the titles of the material,


but I shall be glad to supply that information to my hon. Friend so that he understands the seriousness with which we take such matters.
In practice, prosecutions seem to be successful when they concern explicit visual representations, in magazines or on video, of actual sexual intercourse or of such activities as cannibalism, bestiality, buggery, sadism and child abuse. However, it is possible that prosecutions purely in respect of written descriptions present greater difficulties. As my hon. Friend mentioned, ours is a visual society, and the written word is a less direct medium of communication, requiring some intellectual interpreta-tional effort by the reader. The impact of the written word is less immediate than images and there may be problems in persuading juries that the written word by itself has a tendency to deprave and corrupt. When deciding whether to prosecute, the Director of Public Prosecutions must take into account all those matters, in terms of their application in law.
At the heart of my hon. Friend's remarks was the question whether we should reform the Obscene Publications Act. The Government are not complacent about the matter. We believe that there is room for reform of the Act, but, hitherto, suggestions for reform have concentrated on replacing or supplementing the "deprave and corrupt" test, which is at the heart of the Act. I commend a Library note to my hon. Friend, who has considerable knowledge of the subject. It is a useful document and summarises the issues and work and the fate of some of the legislative attempts on this matter.

Mr. Stephen: I have seen it.

Mr. Jack: I am glad that my hon. Friend has seen it; I found it a useful work when I was preparing for this debate.
Problems have been encountered in previous legislation containing features such as a shopping list of activities or the test of gross offensiveness to a reasonable person. My hon. Friend mentioned that test in relation to the Bill which was introduced by Gerald Howarth but which, sadly, ran out of parliamentary time. If my hon. Friend reads the report of the debate on that Bill, he will find that the Government were supportive and helpful.
In many respects, the difficulties that the Bills encountered reflect the wider problem of legislation on this matter. For example, if one sought to compile a list of activities or subjects that must not be depicted, there would be considerable debate about what the list should contain. One would have to decide whether all depictions of a listed activity should be prohibited, no matter how oblique or inoffensive they were, or whether the restriction should be limited to a portrayal which is regarded as offensive—for instance, because of its blatant or titillating nature.
There would be particular difficulty in applying such a test to the written word. One might think, for example, that it would be right to ban a work which opens with satanism and includes insanity and child murder, or one which includes eyes being gouged out, hanging and suicide, or one which includes rape, cannibalism, murder and mutilation. But, of course, hon. Members will recognise these references as brief descriptions of "Macbeth", "King Lear" and "Titus Andronicus", all by

our greatest playwright. I do not think that anyone seriously advocates a return to the days of Dr. Bowdler's edition of Shakespeare.
It could be argued that a work's offensiveness to a reasonable person is an easier test to apply. My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for National Heritage supported Gerald Howarth's Bill. We are also conscious, however, of the potential dangers that some would see to freedom of speech in making something illegal simply because it is offensive to some or even most people, and we would need to be sure that any future legislation did not open the way to an enforced political correctness before we could support it.
My hon. Friend asked why the Government have not acted in that area and he addressed the problems of deficiencies in the law. We did not introduce legislation. because of the difficulties that I described. I spoke about child obscenity and pornography on which we have moved decisively. There has never been a difference of opinion in the House on the need to act in such cases. It appears to be possible to distinguish between attempts to reform wide-ranging obscenity laws in a fundamental way and much more limited measures to deal with specific identifiable gaps in the law.
I hope that what I have said about our attempts to deal with the vile trade of child pornography illustrates the Government's willingness to act where there is a clear reason so to do. Such measures are important because we must ensure that children are not caught up in the production of pornography. As my hon. Friend said, we do not in any way want to fuel the activities of paedophiles. The extension of the obscenity legislation to broadcasting was a recognition of the indefensible situation whereby that most important and pervasive of media was the only one untouched by the law.
Legislation to reform the Obscene Publications Act is a different matter. Obscenity legislation is all-embracing and involves difficult questions of balanced priorities. on which there will be genuinely differing opinions about the sort of material that should be prohibited. By contrast, child pornography has no creditable proponents and can never be justified.
Pressure to reform the Obscene Publications Act takes a range of forms and the nature of the demands varies greatly. For instance, most people, thankfully, do not encounter really objectionable material such as "Juliette", but my constituants tell me and I know from my postbag that there is much concern about material widely available in our high streets.
Some people agree with my hon. Friend about the contents of our newspapers. Some of the correspondence that we receive argues that, because of the wide circulation of such material and its easy accessibility, it is a more serious threat to our national life than hard-core pornography because it acts insidiously in reinforcing sexist attitudes, which my hon. Friend mentioned. Other people, while seeking controls over what may lawfully he made available, are also legitimately concerned that any new measure should not oppress the rightly valued freedom of expression on which the vitality of our national cultural life so depends.
The difficulty is, therefore, that there is a wide continuum of possible measures, from the comparatively mild to the draconian, each of which has its own constituency. Unlike the specific measures to which I referred earlier, it is not enough to agree generally that the


law needs changing. Any legislation must be based on a clear assessment of what material should be caught and what should be excluded.
There is an understandable but unspecific general concern that the law is inadequate, but there is no identifiable consensus on precisely what changes are necessary in the public interst and on the basis of which a Government would be justified in acting. I am aware of my hon. Friend's personal wish to introduce legislation, but it is from our search for common ground that we draw some of our reasons for continuing to believe that our predecessors' policy was right: legislation in this acutely difficult, sensitive and personal subject is essentially a matter of subjective judgment and personal conscience. We still feel that the traditional prerogative of private Member's business is the right way to proceed.
The fact that the House has so far not succeeded in agreeing on a general reform of the law is proof of the difficulties that we face. It does not mean that the Government have shut the door to reform. On the contrary, as our record shows and as I have sought to show this morning, we remain willing to support attempts at reform, provided that they seem to us to be desirable in themselves, enforceable and likely to commend parliamentary support.
My hon. Friend made his comments courteously, forcefully and clearly. I hope that the debate will continue the dialogue between us so that we can find grounds which might ultimately satisfy him and those whose views he represents.

Orders of the Day — Marchioness Disaster

Mr. Nigel Spearing: I take no pleasure in raising the issue of the Marchioness tragedy and, in particular, the publication two days ago of the report of the Hayes inquiry.
At this stage, it should not be necessary for an hon. Member to raise an issue which it is the Government's responsibility to pursue. I very much regret that the Government have not yet been seen to do so. The Minister was only appointed to the Department of Transport, with particular responsibility for London, in this Parliament. Most of the matters to which I shall refer were the responsibility of his predecessors in the previous Parliament, so I absolve him, but he has a hot potato to handle.
I shall make my own position clear. One of my constituents was unhappily a victim of the Marchioness tragedy, but I raise the issue rather because it is 50 years next year since I first navigated the tidal Thames, and I have been doing so fairly regularly ever since. In politics, emotion has a part to play, and in this instance it has given me the necessary steam. In the mid-1940s when I was a teenager, I brought a small craft down river and moored it to a buoy at Westminster pier. I had my tea alone in that small boat. I looked up at Big Ben and thought, "Goodness, wouldn't it be extraordinary if ever I were in that place." I have been here now for 22 years. I found that I was on the wrong mooring. A boat came along—it was literally a steamer— and a member of the crew shouted, "Come along here, sonny. Moor against us." I did so and chatted to the watermen. That craft was the Marchioness. It was then in its first edition, as it were, as a steamer.
Apart from that specific interest, I have taken a non-political interest in rail and water transport for some years. It is the responsibility of the House and of the Government to have a structure of protection for marine, road and rail transport which helps to provide safety. When things go wrong, we have a responsibility to ascertain why. In the case of the Marchioness, those who are left bereaved and those who are concerned about the matter are determined that those who died so close to the House should not have died in vain.
When the tragedy occurred there was not a great deal of surprise, unfortunately, among the river fraternity. The Bowbelle had been known for some time as a rogue vessel. It and its two near sisters, the Bowtrader and the Bowsprite, were well known on the river. The Bow boats had been involved, so the Hayes report tells us in the appendix, in no fewer than 40 incidents on the river since 1965. It is notable that only the Hayes report, which was published two days ago, has brought out that fact. It could not he inferred from the earlier report of the marine accident investigation branch, which was published in August 1981.
One would think that the purpose of a statutory inquiry —the Hayes inquiry was one because the then Secretary of State for Transport requested that the matter be examined —is to ensure that we pinpoint problems and ensure, as far as possible, that repetition does not occur. That should be the purpose of statutory inquiries. Unfortunately, I do not think that there can be public confidence in the report which has been so recently published. If anything, the position is the reverse of that.
There have been three unsatisfactory phases. First, the content of the MAIB report was clearly deficient, as was the manner in which it was produced. Members were not properly notified and it was difficult to obtain copies of it. The report leaves much to be desired, as I shall demonstrate. Secondly, after much agitation the then Secretary of State, in December 1991, appointed the Hayes inquiry, which was popularly supposed to be a follow-up. As I shall demonstrate, its terms of reference were somewhat constrained. Thirdly, one of its principal recommendations has been turned down. The current Secretary of State for Transport welcomed the report, but promptly turned down one of its major recommendations even before some Members had been able to read I t and before there had been an opportunity to debate the report in the House. It was thought by some—cynically, perhaps —that the report would be published later next week after the House had adjourned for the summer recess. Ai least we have had the small mercy of its publication earlier this week.
The statutory side of the procedure has been dealt with in three phases. There is the coroner's procedure, which may not yet have been completed. I think that everyone would agree that a coroner's court is not necessarily the best place to deal with some of the technicalities which arise in transport tragedies. Such a court does not necessarily have the scope to investigate the technicalities. The Director of Public Prosecutions has brought a charge against the master of the Bowbelle. Two court cases ended in the juries failing to agree.
There has also been a private prosecution against the owners of the Bowbelle, but a few days ago the court decided that it could not proceed. There is now no sub judice block on debate in this House or outside. However, as yet there is no sign, other than the completion of the coroner's proceedings, that there can be any further public inquiry. Indeed, so far as I am aware, the Secretary of State's decision earlier this week—taken before there was much opportunity for informed comment or debate—is that there will he no further inquiry. That is is not good enough. The proceedings to date have left as many questions unanswered as were answered during those proceedings.
I shall start with the legal proceedings in the court, and I shall use lay language. The Director of Public Prosecutions brought the marine equivalent of a charge of driving without due care and attention against the master of the Bowbelle. I understand that that was done because bringing any higher charge might not have led to a successful prosecution, as the DPP explained on the radio only a few days ago. Although it might appear not to be a grave charge in view of the results of the tragedy, we can at least understand its nature.
To be successful, however, the DPP had to prove that there was no contributory cause. I understand that, contrary to what may be the public 's impression, only a limited number of witnesses were called in the proceedings. I have some sympathy, as we all have, with the master of the Bowbelle. Despite the traumatic experience, he was not called and he did not volunteer any evidence. The jury disagreed. There was a second case hearing—

The Minister for Transport in London (Mr. Steve Norris): I remind the hon. Gentleman that the jury disagreed, and then disagreed again on the second trial.

Mr. Spearing: I was about to say that. If I am inaccurate in my speech, I should like the Minister to intervene again and say so. We want to get the matter right and not have to correct ourselves.
We all waited for the MAIB report, which arrived in August last year. Some of us who know the river and know something about that tragic affair read the report with considerable interest. Frankly, I was shocked. I knew—it is in Lloyd's List—that the Bowbelle had been involved in six previous collisions. Only one was mentioned in the report; the others were not. I wrote to the Secretary of State pointing that out. However, that was only one of a number of matters of concern about the report. There were no quotations from eye witnesses, but there must have been quite a few of them. There did not appear to be the same logical description of events that we found in the two parallel inquiries that everyone has in mind: King's Cross and Clapham.
There was no description of the qualifications, experience or biographical details of the two skippers concerned, or of the background to the instructions of their respective firms. That was dealt with only in outline, if at all. Another matter that the report did not cover was a question which arises immediately, but was not even asked: why did the Bowbelle not stop after the accident? We know from the description that the man was standing by on the bows ready to let go of the anchor. That was one of his duties. It is suggested in the report that he was more concerned with that than with keeping a look out. Why did he not do that?
Fifthly, even if the Bowbelle had decided to proceed for whatever reason, or was instructed to do so, what about throwing overboard some of the floating equipment which must be carried by sea-going vessels, or launching a boat? Could it have moored at Tower pier, only a few hundred yards further downstream? That vessel could manoeuvre easily because it was going against the tide at that point. That was not raised in the report.
Sixthly, we read that the two other Bow boats had arrangements for an officer to be on the fo'c'sle during such a journey, but for a reason which does not carry much conviction, that was not done in the case of the Bowbelle. That was not followed up.
Seventhly, there is not much in the way of description of the Thames navigation service and tapes which I believe were taken by the Port of London authority officials at the barrier controls. That is not gone into. So far as I know, evidence was not taken from those persons either.
Eighthly—this is only a selection of matters which should have been raised—there is the whole question of the considerable time taken for the rescue vessels to reach those still in the water. That is not dealt with in the report either.
So from the time when the report was published until the belated appointment of the Hayes inquiry, there was great concern. In fact, it was rather more than that. I would say that there was evasion on the part of the Secretary of State. I wrote immediately to the Secretary of State to ask about the six collisions. I tabled a question to be answered when we returned on 14 October last year asking what representations the Secretary of State had had relating to facts not in the report and he said that he had had none.
After a series of exchanges through written questions, it emerged that the Secretary of State or the Minister thought that the six collisions were not relevant factors.
Yet they were clearly relevant to any sort of investigation at that point. It was not until 21 January this year, when I used the device of asking the Minister to refer the six collisions, which I listed, to the Hayes inquiry, that we finally got those on the record at column 157.
The Hayes report, although headed "The Marchioness", was not just about the Marchioness, as people may have thought it to be. The terms of reference are as follows:
In the light of the Marchioness/Bowbelle disaster to examine the handling since 1980 by the Department of Transport of its responsibility for the safety of vessels on rivers and inland waters and to report on the effectiveness of the present approach. The enquiry should take account of developments in the field of marine safety at the international level.
In other words, although the Marchioness disaster was relevant, the terms of reference of the Hayes inquiry were not specifically related to that tragedy, or any deficiency in the report already published, but tangential to it. The conditions on inland waterways of the United Kingdom, particularly non-tidal waters, are different from those which pertain on the relatively dangerous tideway of the Thames. After initially being glad to have a proper inquiry, those concerned were perturbed because of the relatively limited nature of the Hayes inquiry.
Having looked at the Hayes inquiry and consulted others, I had the impression that it did a good job, but only within the limits of the terms of reference. I submitted evidence asking Mr. Hayes to send it to the MAIB for its comments on what I considered were deficiencies in its report. He did not feel able to do so, because in his view —with which I sympathise—the terms of reference did not cover that point.
Mr. Hayes's main recommendation is very germane. Paragraph 2.5.8 on page 5 states:
There should be an early review of the rescue arrangements and equipment on the Thames which should take account of the Marchioness/Bowbelle disaster and the views of those who witnessed it. The results should be published and it should be undertaken by an independent person. The recommendations from such a review should be disseminated widely and considered as a basis for action by Riparian and Canal Authorities. It will need to be wider in scope than the present POLACAP emergency plan"—
a plan which the Port of London Authority implements when it has problems on the river.
Although I would welcome such an inquiry, it does not seem to amount to what was required following the King's Cross and Clapham disasters—and, indeed, the Marchioness disaster. More than one person may be needed to conduct the inquiry, and it may need to be even more precise than the recommendation suggests. On Tuesday—as you will know, Madam Deputy Speaker; you made some helpful comments, which can be found in column 275—the Hayes report was published, and Lord Caithness, the Minister for Aviation and Shipping, made some radio and television broadcasts. A summary of the report was sent to the press, and appeared the next day. The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) and I were not officially informed, although we had been heavily involved in the matter; we were informed by Thames Television. Even before we were informed, however, the Secretary of State for Transport sent out a press statement, which said
Mr. Hayes recommended that there should be an early review of the rescue arrangements and equipment on the

Thames. The Government has given careful consideration to the recommendation but has concluded that a further review of this kind would not be justified.
I am staggered that in 1992 a Secretary of State, knowing all about the public concern that was felt about this terrible tragedy, and knowing that it had not been examined to the same extent as two rail tragedies which had preceded it, could make such a statement, even before those most closely concerned had so much as seen the report, let alone read or debated it. It struck me as extraordinary behaviour for any Secretary of State. I do not know whether the present Secretary of State could possibly have reached such a conclusion: he is new to the job, but he was a good Leader of the House. Perhaps the Minister can give us some of the background.
As I have made clear, many questions have been left unanswered. The Hayes report is good as far as it goes, but it could not go very far. Paragraph 7.10 contains a couple of sentences about the inadequacies of a previous report, mentioning that survivors had not been interviewed. Of course it is difficult to interview survivors and report on the interview, but Hayes merely says:
They also confirmed the view expressed in paragraph 4.2 of their report that 'requiring them to rehearse yet again the events of the night would in many cases simply have added to their distress without any gain to the Inquiry'. It is difficult to criticise MAIB for wishing to protect survivors from further anguish but there are a number who still feel that they had material evidence which was not considered during the investigation.
The unfortunate people who were in the water are not the only ones who feel that. It is also felt by those who know something about these matters, who presented evidence to the Department, the MAIB or Hayes and who know that that evidence has not received due consideration.
Now the Secretary of State is apparently putting a stop on any further investigation of any sort. As I understand it, it is still open to the Government to institute a proper inquiry even wider than that recommended by Mr. Hayes, which the Minister turned down.
The Minister must tell us why there has been such a degree of reticence. All sorts of wild rumours about what happened on that terrible night are heard up and down the river. I have not repeated any of them. The only question that has been asked is about the relationship, if any, between the ultimate owners of the Bowbelle and any political funds which may have benefited from that firm. That question is in order, and if the answer to it were positive, that would make clarity in such matters even more important. If there were any such connection, it would be unfortunate if people drew the wrong conclusions.
The House has debated the tragedies which took place at Clapham and at King's Cross. Surely it is the duty both of the Government and of the House to ensure that those who died in the middle of our city in such tragic circumstances did not die in vain. Only a proper inquiry, parallel to the other two, can clear the air. It is the Government's duty to set up such an inquiry, and if they do not want to do so it is the duty of the House to insist that one takes place.

Ms. Joan Ruddock: I begin by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) on his success in initiating the debate and on its timeliness. I congratulate him, too, on the excellent manner in which he presented his case.
My hon. Friend and I have both had a long involvement with the issue, since the tragic disaster in August 1989 in which 51 people were killed as a result of the collision between the Marchioness pleasure craft and the dredger, the Bowbelle. Since then, I have worked closely with the Marchioness action group and have presented its considerable concerns to the various Secretaries of State for Transport who have been in post since that time.
As my hon. Friend said, that group has consistently called for a proper public inquiry, such as would be established—indeed, such as has been established—for other comparable transport disasters. However, as we have heard, those arguments have always been rejected by the Government, who first authorised the marine accident investigation branch to carry out an inquiry and then set up the broader inquiry into river safety conducted by Mr. John Hayes.
As usual in such cases, the Department of Transport made the Hayes report available to the press but not to Opposition spokespeople. The report is welcome, but it is no substitute for a public inquiry into the Marchioness disaster.
Before I comment further on the report, I wish to put on record the continuing distress caused to survivors and to the families of victims of the disaster because of their great sense of injustice. The lack of a public inquiry has prevented those who survived from cross-examining experts and has prevented public scrutiny. Many questions remain unanswered—my hon. Friend listed some of them. Not least among those questions are those about possible negligence on the part of the operators, about the lack of observation of the rules of navigation and the lack of enforcement by the Department of Transport, and—perhaps more significantly—about the lack of a proper analysis of the rescue operation. I remind the Minister, who is new to his post, that on that fateful night more people died in the water than in the fabric of the Marchioness.
The survivors and the families are still pressing for the resumption of the inquest. Part one has yet to be held for seven of the victims, and the holding of part two is still a matter for debate. It is imperative that the proceedings are resumed as quickly as possible.
I apologise to the House, I have lost my place m my notes, due to the late hour and lack of sleep and concentration—or perhaps I should say the early hour rather than the late hour, depending on where one considers we are as between night and morning.
We are deeply concerned that the inquest proceedings should be resumed as quickly as possible. I ask the Minister to state his view of those proceedings, and to comment on the inquest legal expenses incurred by the victims' families. Many of them have been in financial difficulties as a consequence, which adds to their sense of great injustice.
The Hayes report is welcome, and it author must be commended for his attention to detail and care. I congratulate Mr. Hayes and strongly support his recommendations for improving river safety.
The report's key finding was that the Department of Transport must take considerable responsibility for failing to give a lead on river safety. The marine accident investigation branch report referred to an historic malaise in the Department and listed a number of its failures. They included, in particular, lack of attention to improving the conspicuousness of passenger launches, lack of action to improve visibility from the wheelhouse and the fact that it allowed to remain on the river vessels whose design hindered the task of lookouts. Those are serious charges.
Mr. Hayes supports those statements and draws his own conclusion. He states:
the Department showed technical competence and dedica-tion but lacked the vision and the drive to lead the river marine industry into accepting that high safety standards and commercial success were compatible.
Mr. Hayes specifically draws attention to the hands-off culture promoted by the Department in the 1980s, which asserted that less regulation was required in order not to fetter business. Although Hayes does not suggest that safety was put at risk, it is clear that the Government's ideological preoccupations at the time meant that the Department did not take the lead that it should have taken in creating a safety culture on our rivers.
Such inactivity is all the more inexcusable when set against the growing awareness of many of the dangers posed by pleasure launches and the problems of lack of manoeuvrability of vessels such as the Bowbelle. The Hayes report states that, despite being aware of the problems and agreeing measures to improve the situation, the Department agreed that the responsibility for enactment should rest with the operators themselves. No checks were made on those operators. That failure to take a more proactive role meant that when incidents occurred no action was taken, when it should have been.
In answer to a parliamentary question of mine, the Minister's predecessor admitted that the Bowbelle and her sister ship the Bowtrader had been involved in 14 accidents since 1981. The collision between the Bowsprite and the Bowbelle in 1983 highlighted the lack of a lookout. That failure was to prove critical in the Marchioness disaster. Mr. Hayes comments that, despite that warning, the Department took no action to require lookouts, believing that the company itself would remedy matters.
The Bowbelle has at last been barred from the Thames—presumably in response to Mr. Hayes's concluding question. He asked whether large vessels with limited manoeuvrability and pleasure boats with limited vision could safely remain on the same stretch of water, especially at night. The answer is clearly no.
I echo the concern expressed in the report that implementation of the new regulations from the MAIB that were drawn up after the Marchioness disaster is again being delayed for commercial reasons. The consultation period is to be extended, which will further delay the regulations' implementation. I endorse Mr. Hayes's warning to the Government against going for the lowest common denominator.
The regulations cover vital safety aspects, such as minimum standards of visibility and hours of work and


giving boatmen's licences statutory status. They must be implemented without further delay and I ask the Minister to comment on that when he replies.
I want to comment on and draw attention to several specific points in the Hayes report. I make no apologies for first reiterating the concerns of my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South about recommendation 8 which states:
there should be an early review of the rescue arrangements and equipment on the Thames which should take account of the Marchioness disaster.
Like my hon. Friend, I am appalled by Government's precipitate and negative response. It is extraordinary that, despite all the clear evidence that improvements to the rescue operation are needed, despite what Hayes has said and despite the fact that more people died once they were in the water than died because they were trapped in the boat when it sank, the Government immediately responded negatively to the request for an early review of the rescue arrangements and equipment.
There is no statutory authority responsible for rescue in inland water accidents. That problem is compounded in London by the absence of a Londonwide strategic body. The Marchioness disaster showed confusion between the existing emergency services. The Port of London authority does not deem rescue to be its responsibility. Some person or some organisation should have the responsibility for rescue equipment.
I also want to support and draw attention to the recommendation that the Department of Transport should promote legislation to introduce a breath test for skippers and crews similar to that applied to car drivers. I understand that the Department is considering that idea and we are glad about that.
When the Minister replies, I hope that he can tell us what further steps he intends to take to control the design of craft like the Marchioness. Clearly, if there is insufficient visibility, the passenger certificate should be withdrawn. Repeated concerns have been expressed to me that those boats are totally unsuitable for conversion to their present-day use.
The Marchioness action group has asked me to raise another point which is of concern to the group. The group will shortly publish its own report now that the sub judice rules, which have hung over the case for the past two years, have been raised. The report will contain many issues that will have to be addressed by the Government. One of the group's concerns is that there is still no provision for lifejackets on pleasure boats, nor do those boats have rope ladders or ling rope around the side, which is an important safety issue. The survivors strongly believe that if there had been lifejackets on the Marchioness, some of the victims would have survived. I ask the Minister to comment on that particular point and its relevance to the Hayes inquiry's call for a proper investigation into the rescue operation.
It is time for clear and consistent policy on marine safety and it is obvious that such a policy is long overdue. I hope that the Minister will take up the challenge issued by the Hayes report. It is not good enough to depend on self-regulation and market forces. It is up to the Department to ensure that the highest safety standards for our rivers are formulated and enforced.
My hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South said in conclusion that it was our wish, desire and determination that never again should river safety on the Thames be so jeopardised that we could have a disaster of such proportions, resulting in the death of 51 innocent people.

The Minister for Transport in London (Mr. Steve Norris): I thank the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing} for giving us the opportunity to consider the Hayes report this morning. I acknowledge his considerable interest and experience in these matters. I acknowledge also the interest and concern of the hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Ms. Ruddock), who is also present this morning. I hope that the hon. Lady will allow me to call it "this morning". I normally refer to 25 to eight as the morning, but no doubt our clocks, as in so many other matters, are differently arranged.
The hon. Gentleman referred to legal actions that have taken place since the disaster. He will know that it is not appropriate either for me or, dare I suggest, for him to rerun cases which have been heard in the courts. The hon. Gentleman was generous enough to allow me to intervene on his speech. I did so just to confirm that, as he knows, on the first occasion, the Director of Public Prosecutions instituted against the master of the Bowbelle proceedings under the merchant shipping Acts in which the jury failed to agree a verdict. That of itself may or may not be significant. As I have said, it is not appropriate for me to draw any conclusion from that other than to note the verdict.
What is perhaps of greater interest is that, on the second occasion on which the DPP instituted a rerun of the first case proceedings, the jury again failed to reach a verdict. I shall not go over the reasons why I conclude that. The hon. Gentleman will know what principal issues would have been of interest to the jury, but it is worth putting it on record that there has been no lack of enthusiasm by the DPP in bringing appropriate proceedings. On the two occasions when evidence has been heard, the jury have failed to agree. The hon. Gentleman will know also that the private prosecution which was brought against senior officials in the company which managed the Bowbelle also failed.

Mr. Spearing: I assure the Minister that I, too, do not suggest having a rerun of those three cases, but they underline my point about the need for a wider inquiry. In prosecuting the skipper, who may have been under some constraint over which he had no control, perhaps any hon. Member would have come to the same verdict as the jury. To emphasise the personal responsibility of either the officials of the firm or the skipper is surely not the right way to consider the totality of the tragedy, which illustrates the inappropriateness of using the normal courts in respect of such a tragedy. That is why there should be a big inquiry.

Mr. Norris: As the hon. Gentleman will expect of me, I shall refer to the desirability of any further inquiry proceedings. In essence, the hon. Gentleman has raised two issues. The first is his long-standing concern about previous collisions in which the Bowbelle was involved. As my predecessor explained to him last year and as the hon. Gentleman acknowledged, the MAIB was aware of those


collisions but it considered that only one of them was relevant to the collision with the Marchioness. That is why the others were not mentioned in the MAIB report. That is a matter for the investigation board, but it was also for Mr. Hayes to decide what should be included in his report to the Department. Hon. Members have acknowledged that Mr. Hayes produced a good piece of work—one which challenges the Department. He, too, took the view that those incidents, which were related to the disaster and which referred to the history of the Bowbelle had been appropriately treated. I merely leave that on the record.
As for the idea that there should be a further public inquiry, there have been two major inquiries into matters connected with the Bowbelle-Marchioness collision. One was the MAIB report and the other was the report by Mr. Hayes. They are substantial pieces of work. Evidence was collected widely. Advertisements were placed in the press for contributions to the work. In addition, there have been the three prosecutions to which I referred, all of which have been unsuccessful.
Hon. Members will know that the purpose of a public inquiry is to establish what happened and to ensure that the accident or incident does not recur. There is no case for one in this instance because, as far as we are aware, all the facts have been established. An inquiry would therefore serve no useful purpose. It is worth noting that the Hayes report does not suggest that a public inquiry or any other investigation into the cause of the Marchioness disaster is needed.
If the hon. Members for Newham, South and for Deptford have any new evidence, they should conic forward with it at the first opportunity. Knowing the assiduity of the hon. Member for Newham, South, I am sure that he would have done so if he had such evidence. Although I understand that, for example, some members of the Marchioness action group have called for a public inquiry—a call reiterated by the hon. Member for Deptford this morning—there is no case for an inquiry. It is clear that all the facts have been established.

Ms. Ruddock: I do not believe that the Minister can substantiate his remark that all the facts have been established.

Mr. John Marshall: What facts?

Ms. Ruddock: The hon. Gentleman asks from a sedentary position, "What facts?" If he waits a moment, I shall try to explain my position. I had hoped to make a brief intervention.
Those who survived the disaster, who might have most information on what happened that night, and the eye witnesses have not been given the opportunity to present their evidence in a public arena. Just as importantly, they have not had the opportunity to cross-question the assumptions, presumptions, opinions and judgments of the experts who compiled the reports. For those two salient reasons, the Minister cannot substantiate the assertion that all the facts are known. We are convinced that they are not known. Those who have suffered most—those who survived and the families of the victims—have an on-going sense of deep grievance at the injustice of not having had a public inquiry.

Mr. Norris: I understand the sincerely held feelings of grievance among relatives of those who lost their lives in the disaster and of the survivors. I understand their natural

concern. We are in difficult territory when either of us attempts to allege that all the facts are known or not known. However, in support of my proposition, I have the reports of the inquiries which have already been held. Both reports are substantial. On the hon. Lady's own admission, Mr. Hayes's report is challenging. I know that she does not suggest for one second that either inquiry has attempted to cover up information which is available and ought to be in the public domain. Therefore, the onus is on her. If she makes allegations that evidence is available which has not so far been adduced, I suggest in all seriousness that it is for her to bring that evidence forward.
As Mr. Hayes concluded more expertly than I, on the basis of what is currently known, no grounds exist for a public inquiry. That is not to say that many of those who were involved in one way or another in that accident do not have an understandable desire to express their feelings about the actions of some people on that dreadful night. I quite understand that. It is the most natural human emotion in the world. But we are dealing with the proposition that a public inquiry is needed. The basis for that inquiry would be that some part of the affair needs to be investigated because it has not previously been considered and material conclusions relating to it have not been drawn. I do not believe that either the hon. Lady or the hon. Member for Newham, South has made that case.

Mr. Spearing: The hon. Gentleman mentioned me as well as my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Ms. Ruddock). May I draw the Minister's attention, when he reads Hansard, to the six unanswered questions in the MAIB report which I listed. There are many more. Surely it is not merely a question of the opportunity of witnesses to give evidence. For example, witnesses on the Hurlingham are not quoted at all. Questions which have arisen in the informed public's mind should be investigated and answered. I produced some questions that were not answered.

Mr. Norris: Perhaps I may say a few words about the Hayes report, and in that context we may be able to answer some of the detailed questions that the hon. Gentleman asked. I intend to cover much of the ground that he mentioned.

Ms. Ruddock: rose—

Mr. Norris: I hope that the hon. Lady will allow me to continue for a few seconds.
Last December, as the House will know, Mr. Hayes was invited to conduct his inquiry into river safety. His precise terms of reference were:
In the light of the Marchioness/Bowbelle disaster to examine the handling since 1980 by the Department of Transport of its responsibility for the safety of vessels on rivers and inland waters and to report on the effectiveness of the present approach. The enquiry should take account of developments in the field of marine safety at international level.
I shall deal with the report first and then come back to the specific matter of the Marchioness disaster.

Ms. Ruddock: It is helpful that the Minister has given way at this point because he has just given the terms of reference, which contradict his recent statement that the facts of what happened in the Marchioness disaster had already been established. It is clear, from the terms of reference of the Hayes committee, that Hayes was not charged with finding out what happened during that


disaster. He was charged with wider terms of reference and therefore it is wrong to say that Hayes and his report have established the facts of what happened during the disaster.

Mr. Norris: But the hon. Lady did not hear me say that, precisely because I entirely accept her definition of what Mr. Hayes was dealing with. She has ignored the existence of the MAIB report, to which I shall refer later.
I remind the hon. Lady that the Hayes inquiry is the subject of our debate and that it was conducted on an informal and independent basis. Mr. Hayes had two advisers, one to cover marine matters and one to advise on safety. The inquiry received written and oral submissions from more than 130 sources and was given full co-operation by the Department of Transport. Mr. Hayes completed his work and submitted his report in May, and it was published by HMSO on Tuesday 7 July.
As I believe that the whole House acknowledges, Mr. Hayes has prepared a thorough and comprehensive report. He has not pulled his punches, and the report is all the more valuable for that. It makes it clear that there is, of course, a fundamental obligation on those who provide services for profit for travellers. But, as he also points out, it is the Department of Transport which, with the Port of London authority, is responsible for regulating the operators on the Thames.
I make no bones about straightforwardly saying that Hayes has concluded that while the Department
showed technical competence and dedication",
it
lacked the vision and drive to lead the marine industry into accepting that high safety standards and commercial success were compatible.
That is straightforward and, as I think that the House would agree, it does not mince words in any sense. It makes it clear that the Government, together with industry and the authorities concerned, have to aim higher in the future.
The report made 22 specific recommendations, which cover the future organisation of marine safety, specific action on river safety, the staffing and organisation of the marine accident investigation branch and its role in the dissemination of information, specific minor improve-ments to marine legislation and merchant shipping Acts in various contexts and new powers over boat owners and operators. I want to make it clear to the hon. Member for Newham, South that we are considering all those recommendations carefully, because he said that some had already been rejected. My specific advice is that all those recommendations are being considered.
Some recommendations will require further considera-tion and consultation with other interested organisations—as the report suggests—so we cannot give a full response to them now. Action on others, however, can be taken quickly. In some cases, action is already in hand. That has been fully described in the set of initial responses to the report, which we also released on Tuesday.
Several of the Mr. Hayes's recommendations concern the Department's overall approach to the exercise of its functions in this sector. The report urged the Department to take a much higher profile in promoting safety among a variety of disparate operators and regulators. We clearly intend to do that. The House will know, however, that part of the background to this matter is that a variety of bodies have responsibility in relation to safety on rivers and

inland waters. That is as it should be, but it follows that a uniform approach would not necessarily be practicable, because conditions vary so greatly between one part of the country and another and between one river and another.

Mr. Spearing: indicated assent.

Mr. Norris: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman acknowledges that.
The police and harbour authorities and the Health and Safety Executive have different safety responsibilities and it is proper that they should continue to have those individual responsibilities. We have therefore decided, as the hon. Gentleman knows, to establish a series of district marine safety committees throughout the United Kingdom, which will be based on the Department's six marine districts.
The committees will review in each area the way in which the responsibilities for safety, rescue and accident prevention are currently distributed. They will identify the scope for improvements; suggest ways of making those improvements; and most importantly, ensure that the improvements are implemented and maintained. They will also make proposals for legislative change if they think that that is necessary.
We intend that each committee will include represen-tatives of relevant organisations in the district, both public and private, and will be chaired by a departmental chief surveyor. We will achieve national co-ordination and a consistent approach to how those committees undertake their work through a national steering committee. I am sure that the House would agree that it is appropriate, on that basis, that after two years, we should review what those committees have achieved and consider whether they should be established as permanent bodies.
We have endeavoured to accept that it is right that a multiplicity of bodies should have responsibility in various locations for various safety issues of local importance. We also believe that there should also be a mechanism to ensure that the new impetus, which Mr. Hayes has charged us to give to the matter, is maintained.
Mr. Hayes also made a number of recommendations about the way in which the surveyor general's organisation—SGO—should exercise its responsibilities in future concerning safety on rivers and at sea. Following recent reports by the National Audit Office and a Committee in another place, an internal review of this matter has been carried out. It recommended that the SGO be reconstituted as a marine safety agency; it would be responsible to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and would have the same degree of independence as other next steps agencies. Work is now in hand to establish whether the organisation should become a candidate for executive agency status. The conclusions on this will be announced in due course.
The hon. Member for Deptford spoke of the importance of recommendation 8 of the Hayes report, which I know we will all agree is the most crucial: it is that there should be an early review of the rescue arrangements and equipment on the Thames. We have reflected on this carefully, but our conclusion, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said, and as we discussed earlier, is that a further review would not be justified.
Action is being taken to ensure that the lessons learnt from the Marchioness-Bowbelle disaster have been fully assimilated. The Home Office is asking the main parties


involved in the rescue—in this case, the Metropolitan police and the PLA—to confirm that they have drawn the appropriate lessons, that their contingency plans have been amended and that those plans are regularly reviewed and practised. In addition, Thames rescue arrangements and equipment will be examined by the relevant district marine safety committee under the new arrangements that I mentioned earlier.
Mr. Hayes recommended a number of measures that, as I have said, are already in hand. For example, we have increased tenfold the number of spot-checks on Thames passenger vessels since the loss of the Marchioness, in addition—I want to make this clear in case there is any doubt—to the annual survey of every passenger vessel. I know that Opposition Members will know that, rather than there being on average less than one spot-check a week, there are now half a dozen spot-checks in addition to the annual safety check. We are monitoring the effectiveness of the bridge lighting system. The hon. Member for Newham, South has a lot of experience of this, and that was shown by the way that he narrated the history of the Bow class vessels. He will know that passenger certificates will not be granted to any vessel that does not satisfy the new stringent visibility criteria.

Mr. Spearing: indicated assent.

Mr. Norris: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's acknowledgement of that.
We are also reviewing the M notice system to make sure that the whole process is much more user friendly, and I think that that will be useful. I am sure that everyone will agree that to issue notices to all the vessels where the advice in those notices need apply to only a small number is the wrong way to ensure that those operating that small number of vessels realise that this is one of those countless pieces of paper that they should read and understand. Full details of our initial response to the Hayes report are available in the Library. We shall inform the House as our consideration of the recommendations proceeds and we are able to give firm responses.
I should like to say a little about the Marchioness-Bowbelle disaster. I know that the House will want to join me in saying that, despite the passage of time, the grief does not lessen. We shall all want to express our sympathies to the survivors of, and those bereaved by, one of the most horrific disasters that we can remember. This is my first opportunity to express my personal condolences.
Although the Hayes inquiry looked at the overall issue of river safety, it was clearly prompted by the concerns

expressed after that disaster, which happened in August 1989. The Government were, and remain, determined that a disaster such as that should never happen again. An investigation by the independent MAIB was at once mounted and some new safety measures—for example, passenger counting and safety announcements—were initiated immediately after the accident. The MAIB's interim report was made 10 days after the accident and included six further safety recommendations, considera-tion of which was put in hand immediately. The MAIB carried out a thorough investigation and produced a hard-hitting report. It made 27 recommendations, all of which were accepted.
Although the report could not be published at once because of the proceedings that were then being taken against the master of the Bowbelle, its recommendations were published in July 1990 so that action could begin as quickly as possible. The Department has moved rapidly to implement those recommendations.

It being Eight o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

Orders of the Day — BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,

That, at the sitting on Tuesday 14th July, the Speaker shall put the Questions necessary to dispose of proceedings on any Motion in the name of Mr. Tony Newton relating to Office Costs Allowances not later than one and a half hours after the Motion has been entered upon; such Questions shall include the Questions on any Amendments to the said Motion which she may have selected and which may then be moved; and the said Motions may be proceeded with after the expiry of the time for opposed business.—[Mr. Wood.]

Motion made and Question proposed,

That, at the sitting on Wednesday 15th July, notwithstanding the provisions of Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business), the Speaker shall put the Questions necessary to dispose of proceedings on the Motion in the name of Mr. Secretary Patten relating to Education not later than one and a half hours after the Motion has been entered upon; and the said Motion may be proceeded with after the expiry of the time for opposed business.—[Mr. Wood.]

Hon. Members: Object.

Orders of the Day — HUMAN FERTILISATION AND EMBRYOLOGY (DISCLOSURE OF INFORMATION) BILL [Lords]

Ordered,

That, in respect of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology (Disclosure of Information) Bill [Lords], notices of Amendments, new Clauses and new Schedules to be moved in Committee may be accepted by the Clerks at the Table before the Bill has been read a second time.—[Mr. Wood.]

Orders of the Day — War Crimes Act 1991

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Wood.]

8 am

Mr. Cyril D. Townsend: I am pleased to have this opportunity to raise in the House an issue that has divided both sides of the House and another place, and has divided the House from another place: the War Crimes Act 1991.
From time to time, the Government of the day, sometimes for lofty reasons, embark on a course of action that immediately strikes one as being astonishingly stupid and bound to end in disaster. Over the months, more and more people sense that something is going badly wrong, but do not feel able to speak out; disaster finally strikes and, suddenly, everyone wonders why that action was embarked on in the first place. Something similar happened in the case of the poll tax, and that pattern of events has occurred in relation to the War Crimes Act, except that disaster is still round the corner.
This controversial piece of legislation is believed to have flowed from a visit paid to Israel by Baroness Thatcher when she was Prime Minister. Having correctly criticised the Israeli Government for the abominable treatment of the Palestinians on the west bank and in Gaza, she was looking for a sweetener for the Israelis. She was asked whether the United Kingdom would be prepared to try alleged war criminals said to be living in Britain, and she agreed to have the matter investigated on her return to London.
In February 1988, the then Home Secretary was persuaded to set up an inquiry, the terms of reference of which were:
To obtain and examine relevant material, including material held by Government Departments and documents which have been or may be submitted by the Simon Wiesenthal Centre and others"—

Mr. John Marshall: My hon. Friend seeks to draw a parallel between a visit of the then Prime Minister in May 1986 and the setting up of the inquiry in February 1988. Is he not aware that Baroness Thatcher normally works at a faster rate of knots than that?

Mr. Townsend: My hon. Friend will know that there was considerable feeling against the proposal in the Cabinet and in Government ranks, which may be one reason for the long delay before the inquiry.
The inquiry was told to obtain and examine relevant documents, which it duly did. Sir Thomas Hetherington and Mr. William Chalmers submitted their report to the Home Secretary in June 1989. They considered that some action should be taken
where the evidence is sufficient
and suggested
legislation to allow prosecution in this country is preferable to extradition.
Bearing in mind that the countries in which these crimes allegedly took place have since gained their independence, has extradition been reconsidered?
The inquiry looked into just over 300 cases, of which it recommended that 75 should be accorded further investigation. The inquiry then came to the remarkable conclusion that there were only three individuals against whom evidence to mount a prosecution existed. Rightly,

Parliament was given an opportunity to express a view on the inquiry's report and the proposed legislation. Debates were held in both Houses in 1990 and in 1991.
On a free vote, the Commons backed legislation, and the Lords rejected it by an overwhelming majority, the Law Lords apparently being unwilling to go down this path. With due respect to their lordships, they are inclined to be slightly older than Members of this House. They represent the generation that went through the war and they know all about the Nazi horrors, the holocaust and the events at Nuremburg. Their wisdom was overwhel-mingly against proceeding with the proposed legislation.
In the House of Commons, 55 Tory Members, including myself I am delighted to say, but, sadly, not the Minister—I checked this morning—voted against the legislation and the total included at least two members of the present Government. I understand that the Prime Minister voted against the concept right at the beginning of the proceedings.
The Act is directed against a small group of men, now British citizens but formerly citizens of the Baltic states, who are accused of being responsible for murders in German-occupied territory during the second world war. It is restricted to them and does not cover the all-too-many atrocities committed elsewhere during and after the war. Japanese war crimes are ignored, although we know that they were horrendous, as are war crimes committed in the former Soviet Union. We know that Stalin killed considerably more of his own people than Hitler killed in Germany. More recent crimes in Palestine, Cambodia and Iraq are not covered, either.
It is retrospective legislation, and surely we should all be cautious of that. It is also selective. Britain is about to follow the old Soviet Union and modern Israel in staging vindictive show trials. The grim and grisly affair of the wrong "Ivan the Terrible" being convicted in Israel should surely ring the alarm bells in the Minister's elegant private office.
Conservative peers who opposed the legislation were led by those of the calibre of Lord Carrington, Lord Hailsham, Lord Home of the Hirsel and Lord Havers—men of great experience in international affairs. In this Chamber, we were led by my distinguished parliamentary neighbour my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath), who fought in western Europe and ended up a lieutenant-colonel. They believed that the more atrocious the crime, the more scrupulously the rules of criminal justice should be observed. Amendments to the normal rules of evidence procedure will give an unfair advantage to the prosecution and penalise the defence.
My second question to the Minister is, what is currently being planned to enable fair trials to take place? With regard to evidence, there has been talk of televised interviews being transmitted from the Baltic states. Has such procedure been used before, and is it seriously contemplated now? Are videos to be used? One must bear it in mind that most of the witnesses live there, although I gather that some are to be flown to Britain—is that still being considered?
Lord Shawcross, a chief prosecutor at Nuremberg, wrote in The Times on 29 July 1989:
Revival of these sad and terrible matters by sensational trials of a small handful of aged men, which will take years to conduct and which will start with an assumption of guilt, will not help to promote understanding and friendship between


the different peoples of the world, will not help eliminate the evil of anti-semitism nor, still less, enhance respect for British justice.
Those remarks very much represent my views. We are all aware that anti-semitism has been growing in eastern Europe.
As I said, only three elderly individuals are expected to be prosecuted. There must be a chance that none of them will still be alive by the time they are due to be sentenced, even if a jury can be found to convict them after 50 years. I draw the Minister's attention to a trial following the recent riots at Wapping. It was dismissed by the judge on the grounds that the event took place too long ago for people to recall the exact details, but here we are talking about events of 50 years ago.
The whole sorry saga has been brought about by a tiny, highly financed overseas pressure group, which, I believe, is seeking not justice but revenge and retribution. It has effectively activated the Jewish voters in the constituencies. I believe that many hon. Members found it prudent to go along with the legislation rather than be thought to be soft on Nazi criminals. It is a deplorable case of the tail wagging the dog.
A special group of police officers has been formed to seek the evidence. From parliamentary questions, I have learnt that in England and Wales there are 11 such officers, led by a detective chief superindendent and a detective chief inspector. Scotland has a further three officers led by a detective inspector. I say unhesitatingly that those detectives would be much better used bringing to justice today's terrorists, murderers, rapists and burglars in Bexleyheath and in Bexhill, and in other of my hon. Friends' constituencies. It is a truly remarkable waste of precious police manpower, especially detective manpower.
In answer to a parliamentary question in February, I was also told that the additional police expenditure associated with the War Crimes Act 1991 is estimated to be nearly £1 million for the financial year 1991–92. No doubt it will rise year by year. My third question is, what are the estimated costs to the Home Office in the next three years? In addition, there will be legal costs. Does the Minister's brief state what those costs are estimated to be? Is it conceivable that they will be even greater than the police costs? Perhaps we could be looking at a bill of some £10 million before this shocking affair is behind us.
At a time of considerable financial restraint, which affects the Home Office and other major Departments of State, it is perverse and foolish to spend such a sum raking over the ashes of the past and events that took place nearly 50 years ago, possibly before the Minister was on the earth.
The purpose of this short debate is to warn the Government that this matter will blow up in their face during the lifetime of this Parliament. The Government will come under growing pressure here and in another place. It looks increasingly like an exposure and spiteful vendetta against a group of pathetic old people. Whatever may be alleged about what they did or did not do in other countries so long ago, the reality is that they have nothing left to offer and a short while left to live. The British people will pick up that what is being proposed is unBritish and inherently unfair. They will be right, because it stinks.
If show trials take place, the tabloid coverage and the radio and television coverage, gruesome and appalling as it will be, will do nothing to help the reputation of the House, it having allowed the trials to take place in the first

place. Many decades ago, Winston Churchill, with his usual verbal vividness, spoke about the need to draw a sponge across the crimes and horrors of the past. He well understood that it would not be possible to prosecute every lance-corporal for what happened in Nazi Germany. I believe that Churchill was right. I call upon the Government to be prudent and to think again.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Charles Wardle): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bexleyheath (Mr. Townsend) on his success in raising an important and sensitive issue. How to deal with allegations of the most dreadful crimes and whether to deal with them such a long time after they are alleged to have been committed were matters that were debated at length and with much feeling by both Houses of Parliament in 1990 and 1991.
My hon. Friend has spoken powerfully and has given his interpretation of the events that led to the war crimes legislation. He asked several questions. First, extradition has not been reconsidered. The War Crimes Act 1991 is now the law. Secondly, my hon. Friend asked about the use of television for giving evidence—

Mr. Townsend: Have there been any discussions, bearing in mind that certain countries are now independent sovereign states, which they were not when the machinery moved into motion?

Mr. Wardle: There have been discussions with the new sovereign states. I repeat that extradition has not been reconsidered.
Bearing in mind the time, I shall take now my hon. Friend's second question. He talked about the use of television for giving evidence. In England, the procedure for evidence by live television link is enabled by section 32 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988. The provisions were brought into force by a commencement order of 26 November 1991 in respect of cases of murder, manslaughter or serious and complex fraud. The procedure has not been used in Scotland because there is no equivalent statutory provision that equates to the provisions of the Criminal Justice Act 1988. The Government have brought forward provisions in the Prisoners and Criminal Proceedings (Scotland) Bill, which recently completed its stages in the other place. The measure will come before the House in the autumn. Its provisions will admit evidence from abroad by live television link in Scottish criminal proceedings. I understand that an amendment tabled in the other place has sought to disapply the relevant provisions to any proceedings under the War Crimes Act 1991. That is the present situation.
Before taking up some of the other specific matters that my hon. Friend raised, it might be helpful if I briefly remind the House of some of the background to the War Crimes Act.
In February 1988, the then Home Secretary established an inquiry to consider allegations that some perpetrators of war crimes committed during the second world war had taken refuge in this country. The House will recall that the inquiry reported in June 1989. It had concluded, among other things, that there were, among the many innocent people who had come here at the end of the war, some who might have committed the most terrible of crimes—the


mass killing of the civilian population in towns and villages in central and eastern Europe. Some allegations relate to the destruction of entire villages with the murder of all inhabitants in reprisal raids following partisan activity.
Most often, the victims of those atrocities were Jewish men, women and children who were targeted for extermination as part of Nazi policy. They were punitive organised murders and not part of military conflict. The subjects under investigation for those crimes are mainly collaborators from the local communities who were formed into auxiliary police battalions under German command to control the civilian population, and they were also used for those killings.

Mr. John Marshall: Does my hon. Friend accept that there has never been a statute of limitation on murders in the United Kingdom? Indeed, this very week someone has been accused of a murder that he allegedly committed 14 years ago. Those who believe that war crimes should not be prosecuted are suggesting that those who were guilty of especially offensive murders should be given a degree of immunity denied to any other British citizen.

Mr. Wardle: My hon. Friend makes a telling point most forcefully. The Government, having considered the inquiry's report, decided to introduce the War Crimes Bill. For reasons with which the House will be familiar, and to which my hon. Friend alluded, the Bill received a Second Reading in this House on two occasions. It is worth reminding the House of the majorities on those occasions. On the first, on 19 March 1990, the Bill was passed on a free vote by 273 votes to 60. On the second occasion, on 18 March 1991, again on a free vote, it was passed by 254 votes to 88. The Bill proceeded to Second Reading stage in another place on 30 April, where it was defeated for a second time. That vote cleared the way for the operation of the Parliament Acts and the legislation came into force on 9 May, just over a year ago. I am sure that my hon. Friend will recall the emphatic support given to the Bill.
I want to deal with the progress being made in the investigation of allegations of offences under the terms of the Act. The task of investigating allegations of those offences has been given to police officers based at New Scotlandyard and to the Crown Office, assisted by police officers from Lothian and Borders police in Scotland. As my hon. Friend is aware, the police war crimes unit in England and Wales is staffed by 11 police officers, led by a detective chief superintendent, and in Scotland three police offices are led by a detective inspector. That is a significant number of police officers.
Police costs of more than £900,000 in 1991–92 and estimated costs in the order of £1·6 million in the current financial year show the commitment that the Government have made to this investigative effort. I must tell my hon. Friend that he should take this year's expenditure as some indication of the expenditure trend over the next two or three years. Legal costs will depend on the number of cases brought to court.
There are those who suggest that the employment of valuable detective expertise on investigating allegations of those offences must have diverted officers from the investigation of more contemporary offences. My hon. Friend made that point. I hope that I can reassure the

House that because the two police units are fully funded by the Government, neither the Commissioner nor the chief constable of Lothian and Borders police have to divert officers from other work; they are separately funded by the Government.
It might be helpful if I set out the nature of the work of the police war crimes unit based in New Scotland Yard to illustrate the challenges facing our police officers. That is a matter of concern to my hon. Friend. Some 301 relevant cases were identified by the Hetherington-Chalmers parliamentary inquiry. Since its establishment, the unit has received a further 54 allegations.
Each of those allegations has had to be separately reviewed to establish the following essential facts: first, that the allegation, if proved, would come within the terms of the War Crimes Act and, secondly, that the person against whom the allegation is made can be traced in this country and is still alive. As a result of that exercise, the unit has been able to eliminate some 250 people from further investigation at this time.
Independent from the police unit, but working closely with it, is the Crown prosecution service war crimes unit headed by a senior lawyer. Over the past year the police and Crown prosecution service have made joint visits to Austrlia, Canada, the United States and the former Soviet Union.
Those visits have been very productive. Agreements were made with the Australian, Canadian and United States war crimes units to share information and to co-ordinate inquiries. Agreements were also obtained with the procurator general of the former Soviet Union that our officers could carry out work in their jurisdiction.
Of course the collapse of the Soviet Union meant that separate such arrangements needed to be made with the procurator generals of the new sovereign states to which my hon. Friend referred—Latvia, Lithuania, Belarus, Ukraine and Russia. That delayed the work of the units. However, representatives of the police and the Crown prosecution service units have now visited each of those jurisdictions and have received co-operation from the authorities there.
The House will be aware that those investigations are unusually challenging. The Crown prosecution service unit is working closely with the police and will continue to do so, advising as to evidence, how it should be presented and, where necessary, supporting the police unit with advice on the interviewing of witnesses in the former Soviet Union and the Baltic states.
The police and prosecutors are, of course, working against considerable pressure of time. As my hon. Friend has made clear, the alleged offences were committed some 50 years ago and many of the suspects and witnesses are elderly. Core evidence from witnesses and documents must be gathered from abroad. Interpretation and translation at every stage means that completion of inquiries takes longer than in more usual police investigations.
Although investigation into priority cases will be completed as soon as possible, I cannot say when all investigations will be completed. Whether or not there will be any prosecution will depend on the most careful scrutiny of the available evidence to determine whether there is a realistic prospect of conviction.
The Demjanjuk case in Israel highlights the importance of accurate identification of suspects. I can assure my hon. Friend and the House that the Attorney-General and the Lord Advocate require a very high standard of evidence,


and will therefore scrutinise very carefully the issue of identification before they agree that proceedings may be instituted.
The House will also be aware that there is a case in the Court of Session in Edinburgh concerning an action of defamation against Scottish Television. The Lord Advocate is aware of the case, but the question of a criminal prosecution is separate from and is not determined by a decision in the civil court where the issues and standard of proof are different. Nor should the House make any assumption about whether any individual is being investigated. It is not the Crown's practice to discuss individual cases. Any such investigations are confidential. Any decision on criminal proceedings will be a matter for the Lord Advocate in Scotland or the Attorney-General in England and Wales.
I conclude by reminding the House again of its overwhelming support for the legislation that the Government introduced to deal with dreadful crimes committed during the last war. Some of the allegations relate to punitive organised murders where innocent people were herded to mass graves. To those who witnessed and survived those terrible events the experiences of many years ago doubtless remain as clear as if those events had occurred only yesterday.
It is now for the police and prosecutors to carry out their duty to investigate and bring to justice those who committed such crimes.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-eight minutes past Eight o'clock.